# Life of Her Majesty Queen Victoria/Chapter 5

Chapter V.
Rocks Ahead.
The proverbial troubles that mar the course of true love were not realized in the case of the Queen and Prince Consort, at least so fas their personal relations were concerned. But there were some difficulties and annoyances in store for them from outside influences. A foolish attempt was made to circulate the report that the Prince was a Roman Catholic. When the announcement of the Queen's intended marriage was made to Parliament, it contained to reference to the Prince's religious faith, and the omission was severely commented on in both Houses. The Queen thought her subjects were as well informed as she was herself upon the history of the House of Coburg, and believed that the attachment of the Prince's family to the principles of the Reformation was notorious. In the susceptible state of the public mind at that time, and in the light of current events, it was perhaps an error of judgment not to mention the Prince's Protestantism in the announcement of the marriage. Even when it was demonstrated that the Prince was Protestant to the backbone, the Ministry were soundly accused of suppressing all mention of the fact in order to retain the support of the Irish Roman Catholic members in the House of Commons. The Whig Government was tottering to its fall, and Lady Holland's witty description of the political situation was that in the coming appeal to the country they had "nothing to rely on but the Queen and Paddy." Even the Duke of Wellington, who usually ​kept his head when other people lost theirs, moved and carried an amendment in the House of Lords to insert the word "Protestant" in the address in reply to the Queen's speech announcing her intended marriage, "thus showing the public," he said, "that this was still a Protestant State."
This little outbreak was only a temporary vexation; but there appeared to be serious cause for alarm in another quarter. There was, about 1839, a remarkable outbreak of real disloyalty in the Tory party; it arose partly, no doubt, from the Queen's known sympathy with the Whigs; but one cannot help suspecting that it was augmented by the elements of social corruption which had flourished in the atmosphere of the two previous reigns. When Prince Albert's household were being selected, the only conditions which he insisted on were that it should not be formed exclusively of one party, and that it should consist of men of rank, "well educated and of high character." This limited the range of choice, more perhaps than the young Prince was aware of, and did not increase his popularity among those who were excluded.
A non-gambling, non-drinking, pure-hearted, and clean-living young couple would have against them much that had enjoyed the sunshine of Court favor under the son of George III. The hounds of the "Great Goddess Lubricity" were in full cry against the Court. The underserved humiliation suffered by poor Lady Flora Hastings gave them an advantage they were not slow to make the most of; it gave them the cover they run best in.
Added to this source of unpopularity which had in it nothing of a party character, there was another of a strictly party nature. The Bedchamber question, the Queen's dislike of Peel, and her desire to keep Lord Melbourne in office, still further aggravated the situa​tion, and, towards the end of 1839, Tory members of Parliament broke out into speeches containing violent personal attacks upon the Queen. One of these, "Victorippicks," delivered at a Conservative dinner at Canterbury, Greville describes as "violent and indecent," "a tissue of folly and impertinence;" it was, however, received by the assembled company with shouts of applause. The chief offender on this occasion, Mr. Bradshaw, was called out by Mr. Horsman, a strong Whig and M.P. for Cockermouth; but matters were made worse, as far as the Tory party were concerned, by the fact that Bradshaw's second was Colonel Gurwood, the confidential friend and secretary of the Duke of Wellington. Another striking manifestation of Tory disloyalty was given about the same time at Shrewsbury, when at a public dinner the company present refused to drink the health of the newly appointed Lord Lieutenant because he was the husband of one of the Ladies of the Bedchamber, the Duchess of Sutherland, with whom the Queen had refused to part when Sir Robert Peel was endeavoring to form a Government in 1839. Stockmar, Greville, and other observers of the current of English politics marked with alarm the decay of loyalty in the party whose traditional principles led them in an exactly contrary direction.
These fears were augmented by events in the House of Lords and House of Commons, relating to Prince Albert's position and establishment. In the House of Commons, Lord John Russell proposed on the part of the Government an allowance from Parliament for Prince Albert of £50,000 a year. This was the sum which had been voted for Prince Leopold on his marriage with Princess Charlotte. Prince George of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne, had enjoyed this income, and the same sum had been voted for a suc​cession of Queens Consort. It seems to have been overlooked that the circumstances of the present case were not quite parallel to these. The Civil List had been readjusted at the beginning of the Queen's reign, not in the direction of increasing it, but on a scale that was believed not only to be ample, but to allow an ample margin for all contingencies; in Prince Albert's case no separate establishment would be needed, and only a very moderate household. Moreover, even if no account were taken of the exceptional commercial distress prevailing at the time, the Ministry would have done well to realize that the time had gone by when the passing of huge sums for the Royal Family would go through as a matter of course. But the Government did not take heed of any of these things, nor did they take the precaution of consulting the leaders of opposition as to their view on the matter; on the contrary, Lord John Russell insisted on going on even when he knew he would be beaten, and irritated the Tory party by taunting them with disloyalty. When the vote of £50,000 was proposed, Mr. Hume moved to reduce to £21,000. This was negatived, but an amendment by Colonel Sibthorpe to reduce the vote to £30,000 was supported by Sir Robert Peel and other leading members of the Tory party, and carried by 262 to 158. It was not a strictly party division, for the majority was composed in part of Whigs and Radicals, as well as Tories. Still it was anticipated that the division would set the Prince against the Tory party. This, however, was not the case. His vexation on hearing of the vote was based on the fear that it indicated that his marriage with the Queen was unpopular in England, and when he ​learned that this was not the case, he did not allow the matter to disturb him in any way, although, as will be seen later, he did not forget it. It will be seen that the fact that Sir Robert Peel had taken a prominent part in reducing the vote did not prejudice the Prince against that statesman. When the time came, eighteen months later, that Peel was called on again to form a Cabinet, he was rather uncomfortable in meeting the Prince. But he found not a single trace of any personal soreness in his demeanor. "On the contrary, his communications were of that frank and cordial character which at once placed the Minister at his ease, and made him feel assured that not only was no grudge entertained, but that he might count henceforward on being treated as a friend."
The curious in such matters will here note a parallel between the foundation of the Queen's esteem for Melbourne (page 53) and the Prince's esteem for Peel.
The Queen was much more seriously annoyed by what took place in the House of Lords on the question of the Prince's precedence. This is one of the matters in which it is impossible for the masses to understand the classes. It is like the pea and the real princess in Andersen's tale. Either you feel it or you do not feel it; but if you do not feel it, you are not a real princess. Questions of precedence appear absolutely unimportant to those who are not born with a natural gift for thinking them important. The Duke of Wellington, even though he was an aristocrat by birth, never acquired the power of grasping the enormous importance of precedence and etiquette. When the Earl of Albemarle, who, as Master of the Horse, was extremely sensitive about his right of riding in the Queen's carriage on State occasions, made himself rather troublesome on the subject, the Duke, who was appealed to, said: "The Queen can make Lord Albe​marle sit at the top of the coach, or under the coach, behind the coach, or wherever else Her Majesty pleases." The Bill for the Prince's naturalization contained a clause enabling the Queen to give him precedence over all other members of the Royal Family. The King of Hanover furiously raged, together with some of his Royal brothers. Objections were raised in the House of Lords. The Duke of Wellington thought it was unnecessary to settle the Prince's precedence by law, and that the Queen could settle it by placing the Prince next herself on all occasions. This common-sense view would have been sufficient for ordinary people; but the fact that the House of Lords allowed the precedence clauses of the Naturalization Bill to drop seems to have caused no little trouble and annoyance. The Queen has added a note to the "Life of the Prince Consort," in which she says: "When I was first married, we had much difficulty on this subject, much bad feeling was shown; 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." The law of England has provided for the precedence of a Queen Consort, placing her above all other subjects, and giving her rank and dignity next her husband; moreover, relieving her of the legal disabilities of a feme-covert; but the law takes no cognizance of the possible existence of a husband of a Queen Regnant. As fas as his legal position was concerned, the Queen's husband had no rank except what belonged to him as second son of the Duke of Coburg. Greville looked up the authorities, and wrote a pamphlet on the subject, urging that the husband of the Queen ought to have precedence over all other persons. He thought the Tory party had made a serious mistake in the line they had taken in the matter. It was calculated, he ​said, to accentuate the Queen's dislike of them as a party, and he also felt that it was ungracious to give the Prince so uncordial a reception. It will render him, he said, "as ironical to them [the Tories] as she is already." In this prediction events proved him to have been mistaken. Both the Queen and the Prince were hurt at what had taken place, but neither of them was imbittered. He first heard of the cutting down of his annuity in the House of Commons, and the lapsing of the Precedence Clauses in the Lords accidentally on taking up a newspaper at Aix, where he stopped for a few hours on his way to England for his marriage. "We came upon it," he wrote to the Queen, February 1st, 1840, "in a newspaper at Aix, where we dined. In the House of Lords, too, people have made themselves needlessly disagreeable. All I have time to say is, that, while I possess your love, they cannot make me unhappy."
The events just narrated received an importance they did not in themselves deserve, from the fact that they showed a weakening and disintegration of the monarchical principle in the party most bound by their professions to maintain it. Revolutionary doctrines were almost everywhere making way; a few years later, in 1848, they shook almost every throne in Europe. Aided by the experience and foresight of their friend and mentor, Baron Stockmar, the young Queen and her husband set themselves definitely, consciously, and earnestly to the task of strengthening the hold of the monarchy by basing it on the affections of the people, and also by making the crown a real power, above all party, seeking only to increase the welfare of the masses of the people, and uphold the power and dignity of the Empire. This object is expressed over and over again in the numerous letters and memoranda which passed between the Prince and ​Stockmar in anticipation of the marriage, and in the years which immediately succeeded it. The Prince was convinced that the dignity and stability of the throne could only be based on the affection and respect of the nation; to earn that affection and respect, the domestic life of the Sovereign must be pure and blameless; that moreover the Sovereign must be the partisan of no party, but have a single eye to the true welfare of her whole people. We learn incidentally not only that "Melbourne called this 'nonsense,'" but that he said, "This damned morality is sure to ruin everything."
But this only illustrates anew that the wisdom of the man of the world is often mere foolishness.
In speaking of the Queen's childhood, attention was drawn to the peculiarly fortunate circumstances which withdrew her very largely from the influences of Court life and gave her much of the quiet simplicity of a private station. If she was fortunate in her childhood she was still more fortunate in her marriage; not only were she and her husband life-long lovers, but she found in him a character and will as strong as her own; he was a sagacious counsellor, a fearless critic, a far-seeing friend, strengthening her throne by pursuing with her the ends of a worthy ambition. The warning which they both received from the events related in this chapter may have been fortunate too, if they emphasized the resolve they had formed to strengthen the monarchy by making the throne a throne of justice and purity.
* ↑ In 1840 wheat was 81s. a quarter; wages were low, and trade depressed; the revenue was steadily falling; deficits were chronic; and Chartist riots were common occurrences.
* ↑ Life of the Prince Consort, vol. i. p. 244.
* ↑ Memorandum by Stockmar, Life of the Prince Consort, vol. ii. p. 550.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1895, before the cutoff of January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1929, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 94 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse