IMPERIUM ET LIBERTAS I. The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second series. Vol. III. 1879-1885. 2. King Edward VII: A Biography. Vol. II. The Reign. By Sir SIDNEY 3. Disraeli: A Picture of the Victorian Age. By ANDRÉ MAUROIS. The 4. The Greville Diary. 2 Vols. Edited by P. W. WILSON. Heinemann. EA 1927. 'ARLY in April, 1880, Queen Victoria was staying in Baden Baden when the news of the election results began to reach her from England. She wrote to Sir Henry Ponsonby : The Queen is greatly distressed at the news of the Election. If the Opposition had only behaved as they ought-without advancing opinions which must fill her with terror for the good of the country and the peace of the world-she would be comparatively easy. The Queen fears all her messages and warnings have been of no avail. If the Opposition force themselves upon her, it will be quite impossible for the Queen not to express in VERY STRONG terms her views and feelings, and she must abide by the views she expressed on certain points and people. . . . On the same day Lord Beaconsfield telegraphed that there could be no doubt of the defeat of the Ministry. The Queen wrote to Sir Henry Ponsonby :— ... This is a terrible telegram. . . . The Queen cannot deny she (Liberal as she ever has been, but never Radical or Democratic) thinks it a great calamity for the country and the peace of Europe! Sir Henry may help to mediate, but the Queen feels, and has for long felt, so strongly and bitterly on the unpatriotic conduct of the Opposition, and their want of feeling toward her, that she feels it will be very long before SHE can trust those who have brought matters to this pass, and she wishes they should know and feel this. It will make her quite ill. It was not easy, however, to make the triumphant Opposition feel that to attack Beaconsfield's Imperialism and to defeat the Government was in itself unpatriotic or unfair to Her Majesty. Mr. Gladstone, at any rate, was full of righteous indignation against the late administration and had carried his indignation to the length of rallying common people to the cause of “ peace and liberty" in Afghanistan and South Africa. Worse still, he was supported by Radicals, some of whom had spoken in terms which savoured of republicanism. The Queen nevertheless was forced to accept the Liberals. She could only write to Beaconsfield, to whom she used the intimate first person in place of the customary impersonal formula, trusting that he would remain her friend" to whom I can turn and on whom I can rely," and then to Sir Henry Ponsonby, explaining the conditions upon which she would accept a Liberal administration. What the Queen is especially anxious to have impressed on Lords Hartington and Granville (she writes) is, firstly, that Mr. Gladstone she could have nothing to do with, for she considers his whole conduct since '76 to have been one series of violent, passionate invective against and abuse of Lord Beaconsfield, and that he caused the Russian war, and made the task of the Government of this country most difficult in times of the greatest difficulty and anxiety, and did all to try and prevent England from holding the position which, thanks to Lord Beaconsfield's firmness, has been restored to her. Secondly, that the Queen does feel the Opposition to have been unusually and very factious, and to have caused her great annoyance and anxiety, and deep regret. She wishes, however, to support the new Government and to show them confidence, as she has hitherto done all her Governments, but that this must entirely depend on their conduct. There must be no democratic leaning, no attempt to change the Foreign policy (and the Continent are terribly alarmed), no change in India, no hasty retreat from Afghanistan, and no cutting down of estimates. In short no lowering of the high position this country holds, and ought always to hold.. Lastly, the Queen will expect that consideration for her feelings and her health which she has received from the present Government, and which her age and the great exertions and trials she has gone through of late years, and which tell a good deal upon her, entitle her to receive. Mr. Lowe she could not accept as a Minister. Sir C. Dilke she would only and unwillingly consent to having a subordinate office if absolutely necessary. To have "nothing to do with Mr. Gladstone," however, was more than even the Queen could achieve. Sir Henry Ponsonby could not conceal that "every day the cry becomes stronger for Mr. Gladstone," and the Duke of Connaught wrote that he could not "understand what is to be done with Mr. Gladstone if he is not to be in the new Ministry." Lord Hartington and Lord Granville, the official Whig leaders of the Liberal party, admitted that they were helpless without Mr. Gladstone, who himself finally settled the matter by quietly intimating that he would accept the Premiership, if it were offered to him, but would refuse any inferior office. Mr. Gladstone was inevitable and Lord Granville did his best to comfort the Queen. "Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone," he wrote, " are men of extraordinary ability; they dislike each other more than is usual among public men. Of no other politician Lord Beaconsfield would have said in public that his conduct was worse than that of those who committed the Bulgarian atrocities. He has a power of saying in two words that which drives a person of Mr. Gladstone's peculiar temperament into a great state of excitement." Lord Granville was "perfectly sure that in attacking the Government it never entered into Mr. Gladstone's head that he was opposing your Majesty, however much what he said may have been disapproved of by your Majesty." There was worse to come. Sir Charles Dilke appeared among the names submitted for the Ministry, so did Mr. Chamberlain. And there were more "unexpected names": Mr. Mundella (one of "the most violent Radicals "), and "the equally violent, blind Mr. Fawcett." The Government, the Queen complained to Mr. Gladstone, "was becoming very Radical; to which he replied that he was only following the precedent of former Governments, when a person was selected as a representative of particular views. . . . He said these people generally became very moderate when they were in office." Sir Charles Dilke however was only accepted after full explanations. In a first letter submitted to the Queen, he explained that his republicanism was a general principle which did not apply to England "where we possessed a well-established Constitutional Monarchy, and where the true constitutional theory has been so much strengthened by the illustrious occupant of the throne." This the Queen found insufficient and Sir Charles was compelled to write a second letter stating that he no longer intended to oppose the Civil List and that in his past attacks "nothing had been further from his mind than to impute blame to her Majesty." Two years later, however, Sir Charles abstained from voting on the grant for Prince Leopold's marriage, and his recalcitrance (which Mr. Gladstone described as a stage of transition from his disreputable behaviour in the past to an important career which he foresaw 66 for him in future) necessitated a further correspondence and lengthy explanations. In the same way Mr. Chamberlain was accepted by the Queen with considerable doubt. When in 1883 he made a speech which she took to be derogatory of monarchy she wrote to Mr. Gladstone reminding him of her own foresight. "The Queen had from the first greatly deprecated Mr. Chamberlain's being in the Cabinet, and she must say she thinks her fears have been fully realized." The Queen's feelings about Mr. Gladstone were scarcely better hidden. She expressed them to him with a tact which was perhaps a little obvious. She frequently reminded him of the danger of his words being misunderstood. On one occasion she wrote to Lord Granville advocating "firmness" with Russia. "We are without friends. Mr. Gladstone has alienated all other countries from us by his very changeable and unreliable policy-unintentionally no doubt." At the beginning of the session she had been somewhat reassured by being told that Mr. Gladstone was an old man, and that ill-health would compel his retirement before long. An illness forced Mr. Gladstone to take a holiday on the Riviera; the Queen joined with others in pressing him to take a long and complete rest. But the incorrigible man was soon back again and reported to be stronger and more energetic than ever. By the end of the Ministry relationships had become exceedingly stiff, and as a final shot on the retirement of the Ministry, the Queen wrote to Mr. Gladstone that she " trusts Mr. Gladstone is recovering from the hoarseness with which he has been troubled for so many months, and takes this opportunity of expressing a hope that he will spare himself from speaking at public meetings for some time to come." Neither Mr. Gladstone nor his Cabinet were permitted any illusions about the Queen's attitude towards the new Ministry. Nor has the fact that the Queen disliked Mr. Gladstone and opposed a Radical policy ever been a secret. But the new letters of the Queen, covering the period from 1879-85, and edited as efficiently as ever by Mr. Buckle, make clear for the first time the formidable nature of the Queen's opposition and the lengths to which she was prepared to go to frustrate the wishes of her ministers. The Cabinet was already hampered by many things: by Bradlaugh, by the House of Lords, by the Irish, and most of all by the lack of any agreed policy capable of dealing with a new type of Imperial problem. But the Queen was a real factor in the situation. She occupied an astonishing amount of her ministers' time in voluminous and largely futile correspondence. She embarrassed them in many constitutional ways and finally resorted to a frankly unconstitutional method of adding to their difficulties. In one incident, however, during the Gladstone Ministry, the Queen played a part which excellently illustrates the kind of function which a constitutional monarch may well exercise in a modern State. She was certainly largely responsible for the amicable settlement of the quarrel between the Commons and the Lords over the Franchise Bill of 1885. It is at least arguable that but for the influence of the Crown the whole problem of the Lords' veto would have been fought out fifteen years before it actually was. This might have been an excellent thing; but it is clear that the Queen's task was to save a constitutional impasse and that she succeeded. The Queen was justly proud that, owing to her constant efforts, such redoubtable antagonists as Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone arrived at a settlement. She noted in her Journal : Lord Salisbury seemed rather depressed and evidently not exactly pleased at the peaceable arrangement. I said it was a great thing, and he answered, "I think we could have made a good fight," to which I replied, "But at what a price!" He seemed then to agree; spoke in very warm terms of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, and Sir C. Dilke, saying they had been very conciliatory and pleasant to deal with. I received a most satisfactory letter from Mr. Gladstone saying that "the delicate and novel communications have been brought to a happy conclusion," thanks me "for the wise, gracious, and steady exercise of influence," and that his " cordial acknowledgments are due to Lord Salisbury and Sir S. Northcote." I Politicians are never as important as they think they are; nor does legislation shape the history of a country. The development of nineteenth century England shows certain general tendencies which are reflected in the legislation carried out alike by Whigs, Tories, Liberals and Conservatives; and although each Opposition attacked the foreign policy of each Government, its own foreign policy as a succeeding Government usually showed little deviation in essentials. A national Government is run upon |