Osborne, 14th May 1856.
The Queen has received Mr Labouchere's letter, and hastens to express her opinion that Mr Wilson27 would not be at all a proper person to be Governor of so large and important a Colony as Victoria. It ought to be a man of higher position and standing, and who could represent his Sovereign adequately....
She wishes further to observe that Mr Labouchere should in future take care that, while he tries to ascertain the feelings of people as to their accepting the offer of a Colonial appointment, before he submits them to the Queen, that these enquiries should be made in such a manner as not to lead these persons to expect the appointment, else, if the Queen does not approve of them, the whole odium of the refusal will fall upon her. The best way, and the way in which similar appointments are conducted in the other Offices, would be to mention the names first to the Queen, and if she approves of them, to ascertain the feelings of the respective candidates. This would avoid all difficulties on the subject.
Footnote 27: James Wilson, the founder of The Economist, was at this time Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In 1859 he accepted the new office of Financial Member of the Council of India, but died in the following year.
14th May 1856.
The Queen would quite approve of the selection of Sir H. Bulwer, Lord Lyttelton, or Sir H. Barkly for Victoria. She is decidedly of opinion that the Governor should be an Englishman and not a Colonist. Now that self-Government has been established in the Colonies, the person of the Governor is the only connection remaining with the Mother Country; and if the Government were once filled from among the public men in the Colonies, this would become a precedent most difficult to break through again, and possibly paving the way for total separation.28
Footnote 28: Sir Henry Bulwer declined. Sir Henry Barkly was appointed.
Osborne, 18th May 1856.
The Queen has to thank Sir C. Wood for his long and clear statement as to the present position of the Naval Force, which she quite understands. She attaches the greatest importance to perfect faith being kept with the sailors, and on that account was distressed to hear of the misapprehension at Portsmouth the other day.
A good system for a Naval Reserve would be most important. The Queen thinks a Commission, composed chiefly of younger officers still conversant with the present feelings of our sailors, would best be able to advise on the subject; the old Admirals are always and not unnaturally somewhat behind their time.
With respect to the policy of not too rapidly reducing our naval armaments, Sir C. Wood only anticipates the Queen's most anxious wish on this subject, for we cannot tell what may not happen anywhere at any moment; our relations with America are very unsettled, and our Alliance with France depends upon the life of one man. And it is best to be prepared, for else you excite suspicion if you have suddenly to make preparations without being able to state for what they are intended.
With regard to the Sailors' Homes, the Queen concurs in the advantage of leaving them to private management; but the Government, having so large a stake in the sailors' welfare, would act wisely and justly to make a handsome donation to all of them at the present moment, taking care that this should be used by the different establishments for their permanent extension. Five thousand pounds amongst them would be by no means an unreasonable sum to give as a token of the interest taken in the well-being of these brave men when no immediate return in shape of service was expected for it.
Osborne, 21st May 1856.
The Queen is very anxious about the fixing of our Peace establishment both for the Army and Navy. Although Lord Hardinge's proposals are before the Government already for some time, no proposal has yet been submitted to the Queen; and on enquiry from Sir C. Wood, he stated but two days ago that no reduction of the Navy was yet settled. On the other hand, the Queen sees from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech that he specifies the sums by which both Army and Navy estimates are to be reduced. This prejudges the whole question, and will deprive the Government of all power freely to consider these important questions. The Queen was, moreover, sorry to find Mr Disraeli, Mr Gladstone, and Sir Francis Baring agreeing with the doctrine of the Times and Lord Grey that we ought not to improve our state of preparation for war; and if we had been better prepared for the late war, we should have been still more disappointed.29
Footnote 29: In the course of an elaborate reply, Lord Palmerston stated that the country had never been in a better condition of defence than at the present time, but he insisted that the Militia, which from 1815 to 1832 had been allowed to become extinct, must be maintained in an efficient state—120,000 strong.
Windsor Castle, May 1856.
It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law. This is the more extraordinary, as a husband has in this country such particular rights and such great power over his wife, and as the Queen is married just as any other woman is, and swears to obey her lord and master, as such, while by law he has no rank or defined position. This is a strange anomaly. No doubt, as is the case now—the Queen can give her husband the highest place by placing him always near her person, and the Nation would give it him as a matter of course. Still, when I first married, we had much difficulty on this subject; much bad feeling was shown, and 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. I gave the Prince precedence by issuing Letters Patent, but these give no rank in Parliament—or at the Council Board—and it would be far better to put this question beyond all doubt, and to secure its settlement for all future Consorts of Queens, and thus have this omission in the Constitution rectified. Naturally my own feeling would be to give the Prince the same title and rank as I have, but a Titular King is a complete novelty in this country, and might be productive of more inconveniences than advantages to the individual who bears it. Therefore, upon mature reflection, and after considering the question for nearly sixteen years, I have come to the conclusion that the title which is now by universal consent given him of "Prince Consort," with the highest rank in and out of ParliamentPRECEDENCE OF PRINCE ALBERT immediately after the Queen, and before every other Prince of the Royal Family, should be the one assigned to the husband of the Queen regnant once and for all. This ought to be done before our children grow up, and it seems peculiarly easy to do so now that none of the old branches of the Royal Family are still alive.
The present position is this: that while every British subject, down to the Knight, Bachelor, Doctor, and Esquire, has a rank and position by Law, the Queen's husband alone has one by favour—and by his wife's favour, who may grant it or not! When granted as in the present case, it does not extend to Parliament and the Council, and the children may deny the position which their mother has given to their father as a usurpation over them, having the law on their side; or if they waive their rights in his favour, he will hold a position granted by the forbearance of his children. In both cases this is a position most derogatory to the Queen as well as to her husband, and most dangerous to the peace and well-being of her family. If the children resist, the Queen will have her husband pushed away from her side by her children, and they will take precedence over the man whom she is bound to obey; if they are dutiful, she will owe her peace of mind to their continued generosity.
With relation to Foreign Courts, the Queen's position is equally humiliating in this respect. Some Sovereigns (crowned heads) address her husband as "Brother," some as "Brother and Cousin," some merely as "Cousin." When the Queen has been abroad, her husband's position has always been a subject of negotiation and vexation; the position which has been accorded to him the Queen has always had to acknowledge as a grace and favour bestowed on her by the Sovereign whom she visited. While last year the Emperor of the French treated the Prince as a Royal personage, his uncle declined to come to Paris avowedly because he would not give precedence to the Prince; and on the Rhine in 1845 the King of Prussia could 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 then 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 enjoys, is that of a younger brother of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and this merely because the English law does not know of him. This is derogatory to the dignity of the Crown of England.
But nationally also it is an injury to the position of the Crown that the Queen's husband should have no other title than that of Prince of Saxe-Coburg, and thus be perpetually represented to the country as a foreigner. "The Queen and her foreign husband, the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha!"
The Queen has a right to claim that her husband should be an Englishman, bearing an English title, and enjoying a legal position which she has not to defend with a wife's anxiety as a usurpation against her own children, her subjects, and Foreign Courts.
The question has often been discussed by me with different Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors, who have invariably entirely agreed with me; but the wish to wait for a good moment to bring the matter before Parliament has caused one year after another to elapse without anything being done. If I become now more anxious to have it settled, it is in order that it should be so before our children are grown up, that it might not appear to be done in order to guard their father's position against them personally, which could not fail to produce a painful impression upon their minds.
If properly explained to Parliament and the country, I cannot foresee the slightest difficulty in getting such a necessary measure passed, particularly if it be made quite clear to the House of Commons that it is in no way connected with a desire to obtain an increased grant for the Prince.30
Footnote 30: See post, p. 197.
Buckingham Palace, 1st June 1856.
The Queen understands that there is an attempt to be made to prevent the military bands from playing when the Troops march to church on a Sunday.
She is anxious to express to Lord Hardinge her very strong feeling on this subject, and her wish that he should on no account give way to such a proposal. Whatever has been the custom should be firmly adhered to, and Lord Hardinge is perfectly at liberty to make use of the Queen's name, and say he could not bring such a proposal before her, as he knew she would not consent to it.31
Footnote 31: The custom of bands playing in the public parks on Sundays had been objected to by various religious bodies, and in April a letter on the subject was written to Lord Palmerston by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after which the performances were discontinued, the Government giving way before the threat of a vote of censure. A similar movement was made in opposition to the playing of regimental bands. See ante, p. 135, note 71.
Buckingham Palace, 3rd June 1856.
My dearest Uncle,—I hasten to thank you for your very kind letter of yesterday, just received. Your kind question puts me into considerable perplexity, and I think I cannot do better than by putting you in full possession of the state of the case.
Our house is very full—and it is possible that we may have very shortly the visit of Prince Oscar of Sweden. These Princes have very large suites, and I should therefore in such a case be totally unable to lodge you and them. But there is another reason. While Fritz Wilhelm is here, every spare moment Vicky has (and I have, for I must chaperon this loving couple—which takes away so much of my precious time) is devoted to her bridegroom, who is so much in love, that, even if he is out driving and walking with her, he is not satisfied, and says he has not seen her, unless he can have her for an hour to himself, when I am naturally bound to be acting as chaperon. Under these circumstances I may truly say that dear Charlotte would have very little enjoyment; she would see very little of Vicky, I could not take care of her, and I fear it would be anything but agreeable for her. Fritz Wilhelm would besides be miserable if I took Vicky more away from him than I already do, and therefore while he is here, it would not, I think, be advisable that Charlotte should come. Could you not come a little in August when the Prince and Princess of Prussia have left us? Or would you prefer coming in October, when we return from Scotland? You will easily believe, dearest Uncle, what pleasure it gives me to see you; but I know you will understand the reasons I here give for begging you to delay this dear visit either to August or October....
I had a little hope that the Archduke and Charlotte might take a mutual liking; it would be such a good parti.
We had an interesting ceremony yesterday, the laying of the first stone of the Wellington College—which is the monument to the memory of the dear old Duke. Dear little Arthur appeared for the first time in public, and I hope you will approve my answer.32
Now, dearest Uncle, ever your truly devoted Niece,
Footnote 32: The Queen's reply to an address presented to her, on behalf of the College, by Lord Derby.
Windsor Castle, 12th June 1856.
The Queen and Prince had intended to take their visitors down to the Camp on Monday next—the only day which we shall have for a fortnight free from other engagements—and hears, to her utter astonishment, that all the troops are gone—not only the Militia, but the 3rd Battalion of the Rifles!—and this without the Queen's hearing one word of it! The Queen is the more astonished and annoyed, as Lord Panmure had promised that the Militia regiments should not be disembodied until there were other troops to replace them, which will not be the case for some little time. What is the cause of this, sudden determination? The Queen is much vexed, as her visitors will not stay long, and are very anxious to visit the Camp; and it is of much importance that Foreign Princes should see what we have, and in what state of efficiency our troops are.
Buckingham Palace, 26th June 1856.
The Queen hopes Lord Palmerston will make it quite clear to the subordinate Members of the Government that they cannot be allowed to vote against the Government proposal about the National Gallery to-morrow, as she hears that several fancy themselves at liberty to do so.
St James's Square, 28th June 1856.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty ... will be prepared, as well as Lord Lyndhurst, to give his cordial support to such a Bill as that sketched out by the Lord Chancellor; but using that freedom which is invited by and due to the gracious confidence reposed in him by your Majesty, he hopes he may be pardoned for earnestly submitting to your Majesty's serious consideration the question whether it may be expedient to raise a discussion on such a subject during the short remainder of the present Session of Parliament. Measures of public importance already in progress are now beginning to be abandoned in consequence of the advanced period of the Session, and Lord Lyndhurst concurs very strongly in Lord Derby's apprehensions as to the result on public feeling of the introduction of such a measure at the present moment. If it could be stated that your Majesty contemplated a foreign visit in the course of the summer, which rendered it desirable that a measure should be passed to obviate the embarrassment which had been created on previous occasions of the same sort, some case might be made out for immediate legislation, though even then the question would arise why it was not thought of sooner; but in the absence of any change of circumstances, and in the present unfortunate temper of the House of Commons, of which a proof was given last night, such a course would probably lead to suspicions and remarks of the most painful character. It would be said, and with some justice, that the greater the constitutional importance of a settlement, the greater was also the necessity of ample opportunity for consideration being given to Parliament; and the hurry of passing the Bill would be cited as a proof that it covered some unavowed and objectionable design. If such suspicions should lead to the postponement of the measure, not only would the Crown have been subjected to a mortifying defeat, but the Bill would be open to the hostile criticisms of the Press during the whole summer and autumn, the effect of which might even endanger its ultimate success....
Should your Majesty be otherwise advised, Lord Derby will be ready to give the Bill his personal support, but he would be wanting in candour if he did not frankly state to your Majesty the serious apprehensions which he should entertain as to the result. Such an unreserved expression of his opinions is the only and very inadequate return which he can make to your Majesty for the gracious confidence with which your Majesty has honoured him, and for which he feels most deeply grateful.
The above is humbly submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,
Footnote 33: The Queen had sent to Lord Derby a copy of her Memorandum, ante, p. 194, a letter from Lord Palmerston to herself on the same subject, and the sketch of a Bill drawn up by the Lord Chancellor to give effect to her wishes. On the 25th of June 1857, the title of "Prince Consort" was conferred on Prince Albert by Royal Letters Patent. "I should have preferred," wrote the Queen, "its being done by Act of Parliament, and so it may still be at some future period; but it was thought better upon the whole to do it now in this simple way."
15 Great Stanhope Street, 10th July 1856.
Field-Marshal Viscount Hardinge,34 with his most humble duty to your Majesty, is conscious that his power of serving your Majesty in the high position of General Commanding-in-Chief has ceased in consequence of the state of his health, which leaves him no other course to pursue than that of placing in your Majesty's hands the resignation of his office, the duties of which his sudden and severe illness has rendered him incapable of performing.
Lord Hardinge cannot take this step without thanking your Majesty for the great consideration and support which he has at all times received at a period of no ordinary difficulty, and which have impressed him with such sentiments of gratitude as can only cease with his life.
All of which is most humbly submitted to your Majesty by your Majesty's dutiful and devoted Servant,
Footnote 34: A great review of the troops lately returned from the Crimea was held in most unfavourable weather at Aldershot, on the 8th of July, King Leopold among others being present; Lord Hardinge, who had brought with him the Report of the Military Commission which had been sitting at Chelsea, was struck by paralysis during an Audience with the Queen; the next day Lord Panmure wrote: "His leg is entirely useless, and his right arm visibly affected. I spoke to him for a moment as he got into his carriage, and his head is quite clear, but his public career is closed; and knowing his high mind as I do, I would not be surprised to learn that he made a communication to that effect to the Queen very shortly."
Buckingham Palace, 10th July 1856.
The Queen has received the enclosed letter from Lord Hardinge, conveying his resignation, for which she was prepared. She asks Lord Palmerston to enable her, by the assistance of his advice, soon to appoint a successor to the important office of Commander-in-Chief. She has again considered the question, and is confirmed in her opinion that the Duke of Cambridge stands almost without a competitor.
Buckingham Palace, 11th July 1856.
The Queen received yesterday evening Field-Marshal Lord Hardinge's letter resigning his office of Commander-in-Chief. She cannot sufficiently express how deeply grieved she is to feel that from Lord Hardinge's state of health she must accept his resignation. The loss of his services will be immense to the Queen, the country, and the Army—and she trusts that he is well assured of her high sense of the very valuable services he has long rendered. She hopes, however, that she may still reckon on his advice and assistance on matters of importance, though he will no longer command her noble Army.
She cannot conclude without expressing the Prince's and her fervent wishes that he may rapidly recover, and his valuable life be long preserved to all his friends, amongst whom we shall ever consider ourselves.
Downing Street, 12th July 1856.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that he has consulted with his colleagues as to the advice to be tendered to your Majesty in regard to the appointment of a successor to Lord Hardinge as General Commanding-in-Chief; and upon a full consideration of the subject, the Cabinet are of opinion that your Majesty's choice could not fall upon any General Officer better suited to that important position than His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and Lord Panmure will have the honour of taking your Majesty's pleasure upon the matter officially.
It seems quite clear that there is no General Officer senior to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge to whom it would in all respects be desirable to intrust the duties of the command of the Army, and there is no General Officer below him in seniority who has claim sufficiently strong to justify his being preferred to His Royal Highness....
Buckingham Palace, 13th July 1856.
The Queen wishes to ask, before she sanctions this draft, whether the Cabinet have fully considered the consequences of this declaration to the Persians, which may be war;35 and if so, whether they are prepared to go to war with Persia, and have provided the means of carrying it on? The draft itself the Queen approves.
Footnote 35: The Shah, availing himself of the departure of the British Minister from Teheran, laid siege to Herat, in direct violation of a treaty of 1853.
Osborne, 21st July 1856.
My dearest Uncle,— ... We had a delightful little séjour at Aldershot—much favoured by fine weather. The first day, Wednesday, the wind was too high for me to ride, but the second (Thursday) we had one of the prettiest and most interesting field days I ever remember. I rode about everywhere and enjoyed it so much. On Thursday and Friday morning we visited the Camp. The new Troops from the Crimea which we saw were the 34th, 41st, and 49th, particularly fine Regiments; the 93rd Highlanders, the 2nd Rifle Battalion, and three Companies of splendid Sappers and Miners, all very fine; and the Scots Greys and Enniskillen Dragoons. The Prussians36 were émerveillés at the looks of our Troops on returning from the Crimea! We came here on the 18th, and have really hot weather.
George has been appointed Commander-in-Chief. There was really no one who could have been put over him; though in some respects it may be a weakness for the Crown, it is a great strength for the Army....
I fear I must end here for to-day. Ever your devoted Niece,
Footnote 36: The Prince and Princess of Prussia were on a visit to the Queen and Prince.
Piccadilly, 24th July 1856.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and will give directions for the Council at Osborne at one o'clock on Monday, according to your Majesty's desire; and he would beg to submit for your Majesty's gracious consideration that the General Commanding-in-Chief has usually been a Privy Councillor, and that His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge might, if your Majesty thought fit, be sworn in on Monday.
Viscount Palmerston will communicate with Dr. Goodford, but he finds that he was misled by the Headmaster and one of the Governors of Harrow at the Speech Day; he understood from them that an additional week's holiday would at his request be given to the boys at this vacation in commemoration of the Peace. He has now received a letter from the Governors to say that the school had an additional week on the occasion of the Peace at Easter, and that an additional week will be given, not now, but at Christmas, in commemoration of the laying the first stone of the new Chapel. If, therefore, the Eton boys had an additional week at Easter in honour of the Peace, as the Harrow boys had, there will be no reason for any addition to the Eton holidays now....
26th July 1856.
With Mr Labouchere's humble duty to Her Majesty. Mr Labouchere begs to submit the following observations in reply to Her Majesty's enquiries respecting the Free States in the vicinity of the British Colonies in South Africa.
There are two independent States there:—
(1.) The Transvaal Republic, founded by Boers who left the Colony for the most part from ten to fifteen years ago. The territory on which they are established never was British. The Government of the day, thinking it useless and impolitic to pursue them there, entered into a capitulation with them and recognised their independent existence. They inhabit the plains north of the Vaal or Yellow River.
(2.) The Orange River Free State. This occupies the territory between the Vaal River to the north and the Orange River to the south. This territory, like the former, was occupied originally by emigrant Boers, and was beyond the boundaries of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. But Sir Harry Smith, in 1849, after a severe military struggle with the Boers, thought proper without authority from home to annex it to British Dominion.37 This annexation was ratified by Lord Grey, and the country remained for three or four years under British rule. Afterwards it was resolved to abandon it, during the administration of the Duke of Newcastle, as a result of the general revision of our affairs which took place at the conclusion of the Kaffir War. The Orange River Territory was recognised as a separate Republic in 1854.
It is certainly true that the existence of these Free States may complicate our relations with the Kaffirs, and possibly be a source of danger to the security of British dominion in South Africa. But the latter danger seems very remote. They possess no portion of the sea coast, and are altogether a pastoral people, and are engaged in a constant struggle with the barbarous tribes in their neighbourhood.
To retain and protect these territories would have involved an immense expenditure, and been attended with great difficulties. Besides, the same question would have speedily recurred, as these emigrant Boers would have soon gone further into the interior, and again have asserted their independence. Our present relations with both these States are very amicable. When Governor Sir George Grey went to the Cape all these questions had been finally disposed of.38
There seems to be good reason to hope that the apprehensions of a Kaffir War will not be realised. The Colony is very prosperous, and is beginning to export wool in large quantities. The new legislature appears to be disposed to act harmoniously with the Governor, and to be actuated by a spirit of loyalty and attachment to this country. What they most want is a supply of European settlers, which it is to be hoped that the soldiers of the German and Swiss Legions will give them.
Footnote 37: See ante, vol. ii. pp. 142 and 200.
Footnote 38: Sir George Grey had been sent out by the Duke of Newcastle in 1854. He had previously been Governor of South Australia and New Zealand successively. He returned to New Zealand as Governor in 1861, and was Premier of the Colony, 1877-1884. He died in 1898, and was buried in St Paul's Cathedral.
Osborne, 30th July 1856.
My dearest Uncle,—I am much grieved to have to retract the permission which in my letter of yesterday I said I would give to Lord Westmorland.39 When I said so, I had not received the opinion of the Ministers, which I have since done, and this is, I am sorry to say, conclusive against it. I quite overlooked one very important case of very late date, viz. the Plenipotentiary at Paris—on whom the Emperor pressed very hard to confer his order in commemoration of the Peace; but it was refused, and the Emperor was a good deal hurt. If now Lord Westmorland received the permission, the Emperor might with right complain. I am much grieved, dearest Uncle, at all this, but it was quite unavoidable, and I was at the time much distressed at your giving the order to Lord Westmorland as I foresaw nothing but difficulties. Ever your devoted Niece,
Footnote 39: King Leopold had proposed to bestow a decoration on Lord Westmorland.
Laeken, 1st August 1856.
My dearest Victoria,— ... When your excellent Ministers will consider things coolly, which is not to be expected in this hot weather, I am sure they will come to other conclusions. The rule is a very wise one, and has been kept up even at the time of those great congresses of Paris, Vienna, and ditto Paris in 1815. But in cases of particular affection and feeling not connected with politics, there have been during the reigns of George IV. and William IV. exceptions. The Duke of Devonshire was sent to the Coronation, I think, of the Emperor Nicholas, because one knew the Emperor liked him. And he has worn ever since that diamond star of the St Andrew of the largest dimensions.
Our Napoleon is too wise not to understand that a treaty has a direct political character. And, during the next fifty years of your glorious reign, there will be most probably a great many more treaties and congresses. You may get all sorts of things during that time, but you cannot either by the power of heaven or of earth get a new uncle, who has kept his word twenty-five years; rather an undertaking considering circumstances.... I remain, my dearest Victoria, your devoted Uncle,
On Board the Victoria and Albert,
14th August 1856.
Dearest Uncle,—You will be surprised to get a letter so soon again from me, and still more on so trivial a subject, but I come as a petitioner for a supply of the cakes or Oblaten which you kindly always send me, but which have come to a dead stop, having been too rapidly consumed; all the children having taken to eat them. As I am not a very good breakfast eater, they are often the only things I can take at that time, and consequently I miss them much. May I therefore beg them to be sent?
We are still here; profiting by the bad sea, to visit many beautiful points de vue in this really beautiful country. We saw yesterday one of the loveliest places possible—Endsleigh—the Duke of Bedford's, about twenty miles from here.
The weather is so bad, and it blows so hard, that we shall go back to Southampton to-morrow by railroad—a beautiful line which we have never seen. I must close in haste. Ever your devoted Niece,
We went to Saltram, Lord Morley's, this afternoon.