The Letters of Queen Victoria, Volume 1 (of 3), 1837 to 1843)

Q >> Queen Victoria >> The Letters of Queen Victoria, Volume 1 (of 3), 1837 to 1843)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51

_Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria._

SOUTH STREET, _8th May 1841._

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty. We have been
considering this question of dissolution at the Cabinet, and we have
had before us a general statement of the public returns for England
and Wales. It is not very favourable, but Lord Melbourne fears that it
is more favourable than the reality would prove. The Chancellor,[23]
Palmerston, and Hobhouse are strongly for dissolution, but the opinion
of the majority is the other way, and in that opinion Lord Melbourne
is strongly inclined to agree.

Lord Melbourne will have the honour of waiting upon your Majesty
to-morrow at three.

[Footnote 23: The Earl of Cottenham.]

[Pageheading: SIR ROBERT PEEL]

_Memorandum by Mr Anson._

NOTES UPON AN INTERVIEW WITH SIR ROBERT PEEL (NO. 1).[24]

_9th May 1841._

Told Sir Robert that I had wished to have sought him through the
medium of a common friend, which would have given him a greater
confidence than I had now a right to expect at his hands, but I
felt upon so delicate a mission it was safer, and would be more in
accordance with his wishes, to come direct.

That the Prince had sent me to him, with the object of removing
difficulties upon his coming into office.

That Her Majesty was anxious that the question of the removal of the
Ladies of the Bedchamber should not be revived, and would wish that
in any personal communication with Sir Robert this question might be
avoided.

That it might be arranged that if Sir Robert would not insist upon
carrying out his principle, Her Majesty might procure the resignation
of any Ladies whom Sir Robert might object to; that I thought there
might be a disposition to yield to the removal of the Mistress of the
Robes, Lady Normanby, and the Duchess of Bedford, as being connected
with leading political persons in Government.

Endeavoured to impress upon Sir Robert that if he acts fairly and
kindly towards the Queen, he will be met in the same spirit.

Sir Robert said he had considered the probable object of my interview,
and thought, from my former position with Lord Melbourne, that Lord
Melbourne would be aware of my coming. He must be assured of this
before he could speak confidentially to me.

Upon this I admitted that Lord Melbourne had knowledge of my
intention, but that I was not authorised to say that he had.

Sir Robert said, "I shall put aside all form, and treat you frankly
and confidentially. You may depend upon every word you say being held
as sacred. No part, without further permission, shall be mentioned
even to the Duke, much less to any of my other colleagues.

"_I would waive every pretension to office, I declare to God! sooner
than that my acceptance of it should be attended with any personal
humiliation to the Queen._"

He thought that giving in the names of those Ladies whom he considered
obnoxious was an offensive course towards the Queen.

For the sake of office, which he did not covet, he could not concede
any constitutional principle, but it was not necessary that that
principle should be mooted.

"It would be repulsive to my feelings that Her Majesty should part
with any of her Ladies, as the _result of a forced stipulation on my
part_; in a party sense it would doubtless be advantageous to me to
say that I had demanded from the Queen, and the Queen had conceded to
me the appointments of these three Ladies."

The mode he would like, and which he considered as least objectionable
for Her Majesty, was for Her Majesty to say to him, "There is no
occasion to revive this constitutional question, as those ladies
immediately connected with prominent members of the Administration
have sent in their resignation."

The vacancies existing before Sir Robert Peel sees Her Majesty, there
is no necessity for discussion.

On the one hand, by this means, there was less appearance of insult to
the Queen, and on the other, there was no appearance of concession of
principle upon his.

Sir Robert was ready to make any personal sacrifice for Her Majesty's
comfort, except that of his honour. "Can the Queen for an instant
suppose that I would permit my party to urge me on to insist upon
anything incompatible with Her Majesty's dignity, which it would be my
great aim and honour to defend?"

[This was his indignant reply to my remark upon the rumours that his
party would press him to coerce and subdue Her Majesty.]

Sir Robert thinks it better for the Queen to avoid anything in the
shape of a stipulation. He would like what he would have done upon
a former occasion (and upon which, on the honour of a gentleman, his
views had undergone no change) to be taken as a test of what he would
be ready to concede to.

Nothing but misconception, he said, could in his opinion have led
to failure before. "_Had the Queen told me_" (after the question
was mooted, which it never need have been) "_that those three
ladies immediately connected with the Government had tendered their
resignation, I should have been perfectly satisfied_, and should have
consulted the Queen's feelings in replacing them."

Sir Robert said this conversation shall remain sacred, and to all
effect, as if it had never happened, until he saw me again to-morrow
morning.

There is nothing said, he added, which in any way pledges or
compromises the Queen, the Prince, or Lord Melbourne.

[Footnote 24: See Parker's _Sir Robert Peel_, vol. ii. p. 455,
_et seq._, where Peel's memorandum of the interview is set
out.]

[Pageheading: SIR ROBERT PEEL]

[Pageheading: HOUSEHOLD APPOINTMENTS]

_Memorandum by Mr Anson._

INTERVIEW WITH SIR ROBERT PEEL (No. 2).

_10th May 1841._

Peel said: "It is essential to my position with the Queen that Her
Majesty should understand that I have the feelings of a gentleman, and
where my duty does not interfere, I cannot act against her wishes.
Her Majesty doubtless knows how pressed I am as the head of a powerful
party, but the impression I wish to create in Her Majesty's mind is,
that I am bound to defend her against their encroachments."

In regard to Household appointments the holders of which are not in
Parliament, he had not considered the question, but in the meantime he
would in no way commit himself to anyone, or to any understanding
upon the subject, without previous communication. He had no personal
objects to serve, and the Queen's wishes would always be consulted.

He again repeated, that if the Queen's personal feelings would suffer
less by forming an Administration to his exclusion, he should not be
offended. Private life satisfied him, and he had no ambition beyond
it.

Lord Melbourne might rest assured that _he_ fully appreciated his aim,
that his only object was to do that which was most for Her Majesty's
advantage, and no human being should know that he was privy to
this overture. Lord Melbourne might depend upon his honour. If Lord
Melbourne was pressed to a dissolution he should still feel the same
impression of Lord Melbourne's conduct, that it was honourable and
straightforward.

He wished the Prince to send him a list of those Ladies whom it would
be agreeable to Her Majesty to have in her Household. Sir Robert must
propose it to the Ladies, but will be entirely guided by Her Majesty's
wishes. There should be no appearance that Her Majesty has any
understanding, as he was bound to his party to make it appear that the
appointments emanated from himself.[25]

[Footnote 25: There was a further interview on the following
day at which various detailed points were arranged.]

_Memorandum by the Queen._

_11th May 1841._

The Queen considers it her right (and is aware that her predecessors
were peculiarly tenacious of this right) to appoint her Household.
She, however, gives up the great officers of State and those of
her Lords-in-Waiting, Equerries, and Grooms-in-Waiting, who are _in
Parliament_, to the appointment of the Prime Minister, subject to her
approval.

The Queen has _always_ appointed her _Ladies of the Bedchamber
herself_, but has generally mentioned their names to the Prime
Minister before appointing them, in order to leave him room for
objection in case he should deem their appointment injurious to his
Government, when the Queen would probably not appoint the Lady.

The Maids of Honour and Women of the Bedchamber are of course not
included amongst those who are mentioned to the Prime Minister before
their appointment, but are at once appointed by the Queen.

[Pageheading: PRESSURE OF BUSINESS]

_Extract from the Queen's Journal._

_Wednesday, 12th May 1841._

"At seven minutes to five Lord Melbourne came to me and stayed till
half-past five. He gave me the copies of Anson's conversations with
Peel. Lord Melbourne then gave me a letter from the Chancellor to
read, strongly advocating a dissolution, and wishing that there should
be a division also on Lord John Russell's amendment.[26]

"Lord Melbourne left the letter with me. The first part of the letter,
relative to Lord John's amendment, we think good, but the other
part we can't quite agree in. 'There is to be a Cabinet to-morrow
to consider what is to be done,' said Lord Melbourne, 'for the
Chancellor's opinion must be considered. There is a preferment amongst
our people for dissolution,' Lord M. added. The feeling in the country
good. I asked Lord M., 'Must they resign directly, the next day, after
the division (if they intended resigning)?' 'Why,' he said, 'it was
awkward _not_ to do so if Parliament was sitting; if the division were
only to take place on Friday, then they needn't announce it till Monday,'
which we hope will be the case, as we agreed it wouldn't do for me to
have a ball the day Lord M. had resigned, and before I had sent for
anybody else, and therefore I hoped that it could be managed that the
division did not take place till Friday. Lord M. said that in case they
resigned, he wished Vernon Smith[27] to be made a Privy Councillor; the
only addition to the Peers he mentioned the other day he wished to make
is Surrey;[28] we agreed that too many Peers was always a bad thing."

[Footnote 26: To Lord Sandon's resolution on the Sugar Duties.]

[Footnote 27: Robert Vernon Smith (1800-1873), Under-Secretary
for War and the Colonies, afterwards Lord Lyveden.]

[Footnote 28: The Earl of Surrey (1791-1856) was now M.P. for
West Sussex, and Treasurer of the Household, and was afterwards
thirteenth Duke of Norfolk.]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

_11th May 1841._

... I am sure you will forgive my writing a very short letter to-day,
but I am so harassed and occupied with business that I cannot find
time to write letters. You will, I am sure, _feel_ for me; the
probability of parting from so kind and excellent a being as Lord
Melbourne as a _Minister_ (for a _friend_ he will _always_ remain) is
very, _very_ painful, even if one feels it will not probably be for
long; to take it philosophically is my great wish, and _quietly_
I certainly shall, but one cannot help _feelings_ of affection and
gratitude. Albert is the greatest possible comfort to me in every way,
and my position is much more independent than it was before.

I am glad you see the French feeling in the right light. I rejoice
that the christening, etc., went off so well. Believe me, ever, your
devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Pageheading: QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION]

_Extract from the Queen's Journal._

_Thursday, 13th May 1841._

"Saw Lord Melbourne at a little past four.

"... 'We have had a Cabinet,' Lord Melbourne said, 'and we have been
considering the question of dissolution and what is the best course
to be pursued; if we were to dissolve, John Russell,' he said, 'would
pursue quite a different course; he would then announce the Sugar
Duties at once. I (Lord Melbourne) said, that I had been considering
well the whole question, and the Chancellor's letter, but that
altogether I did not think it advisable to have recourse to a
dissolution--and I think the greater part lean towards that opinion;
but there _are_ a few who are very much for a dissolution--the
Chancellor and Hobhouse very much so, and Palmerston. They have,
however, not quite finally decided the matter. I understand the debate
will certainly go over to-night,' he said, 'and that they would have
time on Saturday and Sunday to consider about Lord John's amendment.'"

_Extract from the Queen's Journal._

_Saturday, 15th May 1841._

"Lord Melbourne came to me at twenty minutes past one, and we talked
about this question of dissolution. 'We shall have a long debate upon
it this morning at the Cabinet,' Lord Melbourne said. 'The worst thing
is, that if we carry the Sugar Duties, we must dissolve. If we were to
dissolve,' he continued, 'and were to have the parties equal as they
are now, it would be very bad; if we _were_ to have a _majority_, it
would be a great thing; _but_ if we were to have a minority it would
be still worse.... We know that Charles I. and Charles II., and even
Cromwell, appealed to the country, and had a Parliament returned
into their very teeth' (so strong an Opposition), 'and that produced
deposition, and convulsion, and bloodshed and death; but since then
the Crown has always had a majority returned in favour of it. Even
Queen Anne,' he continued, 'who removed Marlborough in the midst of
his most glorious victories and dissolved Parliament, had an immense
majority, though her measures were miserable; William IV.,' he said,
'even though he had a majority against him which prevented him from
keeping his Ministers, had a much stronger feeling for him in that
Parliament, than he ever had before. But I am afraid,' he added, 'that
for the first time the Crown would have an Opposition returned smack
against it; and that would be an affront to which I am very unwilling
to expose the Crown.' This is very true."

[Pageheading: KING LEOPOLD'S SYMPATHY]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

TUILERIES, _14th May 1841._

MY DEAREST VICTORIA,--I am deeply grateful for your kind letter, which
reached me this morning. Letters from hence ought not to be longer
on their way than, at the longest, forty hours; forty-eight is the
maximum. I fear that they are delayed at the Foreign Office; here it
cannot be, as for instance these lines go this evening.

I can easily understand that the present crisis must have something
very painful for you, and you will do well for your health and comfort
to try to take it as philosophically as possible; it is a part of
the Constitutional system which is for the Sovereign very hard to get
over.

_Nous savons tous des paroles sur cet air_, as the French say. I was
convinced that Lord Melbourne's right and good feeling would make him
pause before he proposed to you a dissolution. A general election in
England, when great passions must be roused or created to render
it efficacious for one party or another, is a dangerous experiment,
always calculated to shake the foundations on which have hitherto
reposed the great elements of the political power of the country.
Albert will be a great comfort to you, and to hear it from yourself
has given me the sincerest delight. His judgment is good, and he is
mild and safe in his opinions; they deserve your serious attention;
young as he is, I have really often been quite surprised how quick and
correct his judgment is....

[Pageheading: TORY DISSENSIONS]

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

WILTON CRESCENT, _16th May 1841._

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has
the honour to state that the general effect of last week's debate[29]
has been greatly in favour of the measures of your Majesty's
Ministers.

The speeches of Mr Labouchere, Sir George Grey, and Lord Howick, with
the powerful argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday
night, have not been met by any corresponding ability on the other
side.

In fact the Opposition seem to have concealed their own views of
policy, and to have imagined that the Anti-Slavery feeling would carry
them through successfully. But this expectation has been entirely
disappointed; debate has unmasked the hollow pretence of humanity,
and the meetings at Exeter Hall and in the country have completely
counteracted the impressions which Dr Lushington's speech[30] had
produced.

Lancashire, Cheshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire have been
roused to strong excitement by the prospect of a reduction of the
duty on corn. Several of the large towns have expressed their opinions
without distinction of party.

These symptoms are said to have created some dissensions among the
opponents of your Majesty's present Government.

Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and nearly all the eminent leaders
of the party, profess their adherence to the principles of Mr
Huskisson.[31] On the other hand, the Duke of Buckingham,[32] with
many Lords and Commoners, is opposed to any relaxation of the
present Corn Laws. This difference must ultimately produce serious
consequences, and it is possible they may break out before the present
debate is ended.

One consequence of the propositions of the Ministry is the
weakening of the power of the Chartists, who have relied on the
misrepresentation that neither Whigs nor Tories would ever do anything
for the improvement of the condition of the working classes.

All these circumstances have a bearing on the question of a
dissolution of Parliament, and are to be weighed against the risks and
inconveniences of so bold a measure.

[Footnote 29: On Lord Sandon's resolution.]

[Footnote 30: Against the Budget, on the ground that it tended
to encourage slavery.]

[Footnote 31: Which were opposed to Protection and the
Navigation Laws.]

[Footnote 32: Richard Plantagenet (1797-1861), second Duke of
the 1822 creation, M.P. for Bucks 1818-1839, and author of
the "Chandos clause," became Lord Privy Seal this year, but
resigned shortly after. He dissipated his property, and had to
sell the contents of Stowe.]

[Pageheading: THE QUEEN'S JOURNAL]

_Extract from the Queen's Journal._

_Monday, 17th May 1841._

"Lord Melbourne came to me at twenty minutes to three. There were no
_new_ news. He gave me a letter from the Duke of Roxburgh,[33] saying
he could not support Government on the Corn Laws, and writing an
unnecessarily cold letter. Lord Melbourne fears this would lose
Roxburgh in case of an election. A great many of the friends of the
Government, however, are against any alteration in the Corn Laws.
Talked of the excellent accounts from the country with which the
papers are full, and I said I couldn't help thinking the Government
would gain by a dissolution, and the feeling in the country so strong,
and daily increasing. They would lose the counties, Lord Melbourne
thinks, and the question is whether their successes in the
manufacturing towns would be sufficient to counterbalance that. The
debate may last longer, Lord Melbourne says, as J. Russell says he
will continue it as long as their friends wish it. Many of their
friends would be very angry if we did not dissolve, Lord Melbourne
says. 'I say always,' said Lord Melbourne, 'that your Majesty will
be in such a much worse position' (if a majority should be returned
against us), 'but they say not, for that the others would dissolve.'
I said that if that was so we _must dissolve_, for then that it would
come to just the same thing, and that that changed my opinion very
much. 'You would like us then to make the attempt?' Lord Melbourne
asked. I said 'Almost.' I asked if he really thought they would
dissolve. 'I've great reason to believe they would,' he replied.
'Hardinge[34] told Vivian[35] "we shall prevent _your_ dissolving, but
_we shall_ dissolve."' ... I asked did Lord Melbourne think they (the
Conservatives) would remain in long, and Melbourne said: 'One can't
tell beforehand what may happen, but you would find their divisions
and dissensions amongst themselves sufficient to prevent their staying
in long.' ...

"Saw Lord John Russell, who didn't feel certain if the debate would
end to-night. Talked of the very good feeling in the country. He said
he understood Sir Edward Knatchbull[36] was exceedingly displeased at
what Peel had said concerning Free Trade, and said in that case Peel
would be as bad as the present Government. He thinks the Tories, if in
power, might try and collect the Sugar duties without Law, which would
do them a great deal of harm and be exceedingly unpopular. He does
_not_ think the Tories intend _certainly_ to dissolve. He thinks they
would not dissolve now, and that they would hereafter get so entangled
by their own dissensions, as to render it unfavourable to them."

[Footnote 33: James, sixth Duke. The Duchess was afterwards a
Lady of the Bedchamber.]

[Footnote 34: Sir Henry Hardinge (1785-1856) had been
Secretary at War, and Chief Secretary for Ireland, under
former Tory Governments.]

[Footnote 35: Master-General of the Ordnance.]

[Footnote 36: M.P. for East Kent. He became Paymaster-General
in Peel's Cabinet.]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

_18th May 1841._

... I was sure you would feel for me. Since last Monday, the 10th, we
have lived in the daily expectation of a final event taking place, and
the debate _still_ continues, and it is not certain whether it will
even finish to-night, this being the eighth night, it having begun on
Friday the 7th, two Saturdays and two Sundays having intervened! Our
plans are so unsettled that I can tell you nothing, only that you
may depend upon it nothing will be done without having been duly,
properly, and maturely weighed. Lord Melbourne's conduct is as usual
perfect; fair, calm, and totally disinterested, and I am certain that
in whatever position he is _you_ will treat him _just_ as you have
always done.

My dearest Angel is indeed a great comfort to me. He takes the
greatest interest in what goes on, feeling with and for me, and yet
abstaining as he ought from biassing me either way, though we talk
much on the subject, and his judgment is, as you say, good and
mild....

_P.S._--Pray let me hear soon _when_ you come. You, I know, like me
to tell you what I hear, and for me to be frank with you. I therefore
tell you that it is believed by some people here, and even by some
in the Government, that _you_ wish my Government to be _out_. Now,
I never for an instant can believe such an assertion, as I know your
liberal feelings, and your interest in my welfare and in that of
the country too well to think you could wish for such a thing, and I
immediately said I was sure this was not so; but I think you would
do well to say to Seymour something which might imply interest in my
present Government.

I know you will understand my anxiety on your account, lest such a
mischievous report should be believed. It comes, you see, from the
idea that your feelings are very French.

[Pageheading: THE CORN LAWS]

_Extract from the Queen's Journal._

_Tuesday, 18th May 1841._

"Saw Lord Melbourne.[37] He said Lord John Russell had been to
see him, and, 'He now wishes us not to resign, but to give notice
immediately of a Motion on the Corn Laws. This, he thinks, will make
the others propose a vote of confidence, or make them oppose the Sugar
Duties, which, he thinks, will be better for us to resign upon,
and when it would be clear to our people that we couldn't dissolve.
Everybody says it would be a very bad thing for us to resign now, upon
such a question as this, and we must consider the party a little.' I
said, of course, this would be agreeable to me as it gave us another
chance. I said it would be awkward if they resigned Thursday, on
account of the Birthday. Lord Melbourne said I could wait a day and
only send for Peel on Saturday, that that wouldn't signify to Peel,
as he could come down to Claremont.... I asked, in case they meant to
bring on this Corn Law question, when would they do so. 'Perhaps about
the 30th,' Lord Melbourne said. It would be a more dangerous question,
but it would make them (the Tories) show their colours, which is a
great advantage. He said they prevented Sir Edward Knatchbull from
speaking last night."

[Footnote 37: After eight days' discussions of Lord Sandon's
Motion, the Ministers were defeated by 317 to 281.]

[Pageheading: RESIGNATION POSTPONED]

_Wednesday, 19th May._

"At twenty minutes to one came Lord Melbourne.... I returned him Lord
John Russell's letter, and talked of it, and of John Russell's saying
the division and Peel's speech made it absolutely necessary to decide
_to-day_ whether to _resign_ or _dissolve_. I asked what Peel had
said in his speech about the Corn Laws. 'I'll tell you, Ma'am, what he
said,' Lord Melbourne replied, 'that he was for a sliding duty and
not for a fixed duty; but he did not pledge himself as to what rate of
duty it should be. I must say,' Lord Melbourne continued, 'I am
still against dissolution. I don't think our chances of success are
sufficient.' I replied that I couldn't quite believe that, but that I
might be wrong. Lord John is for dissolving. '_You_ wish it?' I said I
always did. Talked of the feeling in the City and in the country being
so good. Lord Melbourne don't think so much of the feeling in the
country. Talked of the majority of thirty-six having not been more
than they expected.... Lord Melbourne said people thought the debate
was lengthened to please me. I said not at all, but that it was more
convenient for me. Anyhow I need do nothing till Saturday. The House
of Commons was adjourned to the next day, and the House of Lords to
Monday. 'Mr Baring says,' he said, 'if there was only a majority
one way or another, it would be better than this state of complete
equality.'