[8] This is evidently in reference to the general belief that the Queen was a strong partisan of the Whig party.
CHAPTER IV.
LOVE AND POLITICS.
The first important political event of the Queen’s reign was the insurrection in Canada, which broke out in the late autumn of 1837. The Queen has herself told us that, notwithstanding all King Leopold’s and Stockmar’s instructions, she was at this time an ardent Whig in her political sympathies; but the history of the Canadian insurrection, while ultimately showing the value of colonial self-government as a safeguard against rebellion, demonstrated the wisdom of their maxims that it was the duty of a constitutional Sovereign to keep aloof from party, and also was one of a series of events which revealed to the Queen the real character of many of the able statesmen of both parties by whom she was surrounded. The first effect of the policy of the Whig Government in Canada was disastrous to them as a Ministry. The Earl of Durham, whom they had appointed High Commissioner, with very large powers to deal with the insurrection, showed a masterly grasp of principles, combined with a total want of judgment in detail. His failure in details was at first all that was apparent; he went far beyond his large legal powers; his ordinances were disallowed by Parliament, and he resigned his office, publishing, before he left his official residence at Quebec, a proclamation attacking the Government which had appointed him. Almost the only group of politicians who supported him at home were the Radicals, who, in or out of Parliament, were influenced by J. S. North.
In the House of Lords the ultra-Liberal Brougham joined with the ultra-Tory Lyndhurst in scathing attacks on Lord Durham and the Government. It was soon evident that Brougham rejoiced in any national calamity in Canada or elsewhere if it afforded him means of damaging the party of which he was a former member. The Duke of Wellington, on the other hand, had a single eye to his country’s welfare. The Canadian insurrection placed her in difficulty and danger; and his first thought was how to get her out of the difficulty, and avert the danger. He entirely sunk all party considerations in national objects, and as even his enemies were obliged to confess, “that man’s first object is to serve his country, with a sword if necessary, or with a pickaxe.” In the first debate in the Lords on Canada, Brougham “delivered a tremendous philippic of three hours. The Duke of Wellington made a very noble speech, just as it befitted him to make at such a moment, and of course it bitterly mortified and provoked the Tories, who would have had him make a party question of it, and thought of nothing but abusing, vilifying, and embarrassing the Government.” On the next occasion, when another party field-day was arranged in the House of Lords, the Duke was expected to make some amends to his party, and explain away the moderation of his former speech; but he made a second speech quite as moderate as the first. Greville’s mother told the Duke how angry his party were with him for what he had said, and his only reply was, “Depend upon it, it was true.” This was the course invariably pursued by the Duke; in times of danger he dropped all party considerations, and thought of nothing but how to serve his country. When the China War broke out in 1840, when the Whigs were in office, he supported the Government in the House of Lords with all the strength he could command. Greville told him that his own party were to the last degree annoyed and provoked by his speech. He replied: “I know that well enough, and I don’t care one damn.... I have not time not to do what is right.”
Peel had shown the same spirit during the general election that followed the Queen’s accession. Certain low Tories of the baser sort had not hesitated to make party capital out of the unpopularity of the New Poor Law, passed by the Whigs in 1834. Peel would have nothing to do with this; for though the Act could not but be unpopular in certain quarters, he was convinced of its necessity, and wholly discountenanced the attacks upon it.
These two incidents in the political warfare of the first months of her reign must have had a considerable influence in forming the young Queen’s judgment on men and parties. Events framed themselves into a sort of new version of the judgment of Solomon, and enabled her to distinguish between the real and false patriots, between those statesmen who really loved their country and acted on conviction, and those who only pretended to love, and acted from self-interest.
A very brief review of the chief political events of 1837-40 will serve to show of what an absorbing nature they must have been to the Queen. The Anti-Corn Law agitation was just beginning to show its great importance; in antagonism with this, and parallel with it, was the more or less revolutionary Chartist movement, associated in these early years of the reign with riots at Birmingham, Manchester, and Newport, Monmouthshire. The country was in a very disturbed state; the Government was weak, and inspired no confidence; moreover, the perennial trouble in Ireland was just then in a more than usually acute stage.
Besides these larger political interests, there were others of a character more personal to the Queen herself, which must for a time have occupied and interested her almost to the exclusion of even more weighty matters. The gorgeous ceremonial of the coronation took place in June, 1838. The cheers of the Londoners in honor of Marshal Soult on that occasion, curiously enough, did something to produce a more friendly feeling between France and England, and paved the way for an alliance between the two countries. There are such a number of graphic accounts by eye-witnesses of the coronation that it is unnecessary here to attempt to reproduce them. As usual, the spectators saw what they brought with them the capacity to see. One gives a detailed account of the pageant, the floods of golden light, illuminating gold and jewels and velvety robes; another sees a young life dedicating itself to the public service. Lord Shaftesbury was one of these latter; the note in his diary on the coronation is: “It has been a wonderful period, ... an idle pageant, forsooth? As idle as the coronation of King Solomon, or the dedication of his temple.”
A purely domestic affair, in 1839, must have caused the Queen much anxiety and trouble. One of the ladies attendant on the Duchess of Kent, Lady Flora Hastings, was accused of being with child; and she was ordered not to appear at Court till she could clear herself of the imputation. Subsequent medical examination proved the entire innocence of the unfortunate lady, who was suffering from a disease of which modern surgical skill has very largely reduced the perils. At that time, however, it was supposed to be beyond all human aid, and the poor lady died within a very few months after the humiliation to which she had been subjected. There was naturally an intensely strong feeling of commiseration for her. No one was to blame exactly in the matter; one can quite understand the determination of those who felt themselves the natural protectors of the young Queen, to guard her Court from the scandals and disgraces of a loose standard of conduct; but it was generally felt that a little more tact, a little more kindness, even supposing the poor lady to have been guilty, would have prevented the report being blazoned all over London and England in the way it was. This scandal very much weakened the Ministry in the estimation of the country, rather unjustly as it seems to us now; for the whole matter was one relating to the Queen’s private establishment, and not to her political advisers. It was a delicate matter which ought to have been dealt with by an experienced woman, possessed of good feeling and good sense. But Lord Melbourne was blamed, and people said, “What is the use of the Prime Minister being domiciled in the Palace, unless he is able to prevent the shame and mortification of such blunders?”