Produced by Chris Curnow, Charlie Howard, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
[Illustration: (cover)]
[Illustration:
_Copyright Fine Art Society_
VICTORIA REGINA
1837
FROM THE PAINTING BY H. T. WELLS, R.A.]
[Illustration: (Title Page)]
THE
QUEEN’S REIGN
AND ITS COMMEMORATION · A
LITERARY AND PICTORIAL REVIEW
OF THE PERIOD · THE STORY
OF THE VICTORIAN TRANSFORMATION ·
BY SIR WALTER BESANT
1837 ♔ 1897
The Werner Company · · London
Chicago · New York · Berlin · Paris
Eighteen Hundred and Ninety Seven
[Illustration]
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 5
CHAPTER I 7
CHAPTER II 15
CHAPTER III 32
CHAPTER IV 41
CHAPTER V 48
CHAPTER VI 61
CHAPTER VII 72
THE COMMEMORATION 85
[Illustration]
INTRODUCTION
“Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty.”
_As You Like It._
When Sydney Smith, towards the close of his life, considered the
changes which had passed over the country within his recollection, he
said that he wondered how the young men of his time had managed to
preserve even a decent appearance of cheerfulness. Sydney Smith died
in 1845, just at the beginning of those deeper and wider changes of
which he suspected nothing; for, though he was a clear-headed man in
many ways, he was no prophet--he saw the actual and the present, but
was unable to feel the action of the invisible and potent forces which
were creating a future to him terrible and almost impossible. Had he
possessed the prophetic spirit, he would have been another Jeremiah for
the destruction of the old forms of society; the levelling up and the
levelling down destined to take place would have been pain and grief
intolerable to him.
I have always maintained that the eighteenth century lingered on in its
ways, customs, and modes of thought until the commencement of Queen
Victoria’s reign, and I regard myself with a certain complacency as
having been born on the fringe of that interesting period. I might
also take pleasure in remembering that one who has lived through this
reign has been an eyewitness, a bystander, perhaps in some minute
degree an assistant, during a Revolution which has transformed this
country completely from every point of view, not only in manners and
customs, but also in thought, in ideas, in standards; in the way of
regarding this world, and in the way of considering the world to come.
I do not, however, take much pleasure in this retrospect, because the
transition has taken place silently, without my knowledge; it escaped
my notice while it went on: the world has changed before my eyes, and
I have not regarded the phenomenon, being busily occupied over my own
little individual interests. I have been, indeed, like one who sits in
a garden thinking and weaving stories, nor heeding while the shadows
shift slowly across the lawns, while the hand of the dial moves on from
morning to afternoon. I have been like such a one, and, like him, I
have awakened to find that the air, the light, the sky, the sunshine
have all changed, and that the day is well-nigh done.
Do not expect in this volume a Life of Queen Victoria. You have her
public life in the events of her reign: of her private life I will
speak in the next chapter. But I can offer you no special, otherwise
unattainable, information; there will be here no scandal of the Court;
I have climbed no backstairs; I have peeped through no key-hole; I have
perused no secret correspondence; I have, on this subject, nothing to
tell you but what you know already.
Do not again look in these pages for a _résumé_ of public events. You
may find them in any Annual or Encyclopædia. What I propose to show
you is the transformation of the people by the continual pressure and
influence of legislation and of events of which no one suspected the
far-reaching action. The greatest importance of public events is often
seen, after the lapse of years, in their effect upon the character of
the people: this view of the case, this transforming force of any new
measure, seldom considered by statesman or by philosopher, because
neither one nor the other has the prophetic gift--if it could be
adequately considered while that measure is under discussion--would be
stronger than any possible persuasion or any arguments of expediency,
logic, or abstract justice.
I propose, therefore, to present a picture of the various social
_strata_ in 1837, and to show how the remarkable acts of British
Legislation, such as Free Trade, cheap newspapers, improved
communications, together with such accidents as the discovery of
gold in Australia, and of diamonds at the Cape, have altogether, one
with the other, so completely changed the mind and the habits of the
ordinary Englishman that he would not, could he see him, recognise his
own grandfather. And I hope that this sketch may prove not only useful
in the manner already indicated, but also interesting and fresh to the
general readers.
W. B.
EASTER SUNDAY, _18th April 1897_.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I
QUEEN AND CONSTITUTION
“The wise woman buildeth her house.”--_Book of Proverbs._
In 1837 the Queen mounted the throne. It was a time of misgiving and
of discontent. The passing of the Reform Act of 1832 had not as yet
produced the results expected of it; there were other and more sweeping
reforms in the air: the misery and the oppression of the factory hands,
the incredible cruelty practised on the children of the mill and the
mine, the deep poverty of the agricultural districts, the distress
of the trading classes, formed a gloomy portal to a reign which was
destined to be so long and so glorious. Thus, in turning over the
papers then circulated among the working-classes of the time, one
observes a total absence of anything like loyalty to the Crown. It has
vanished. A blind hatred has taken its place. What is loyalty to the
Crown? To begin with, it is something more than an intelligent adhesion
to the Constitution; it regards the Sovereign as personifying and
representing the nation; it ascribes to the Sovereign, therefore, the
highest virtues and qualities which the nation itself would present to
the world. The King, among loyal people, is brave, honest, truthful,
the chief support of the Constitution, the Fountain of Honour. To obey
the King is to obey the country. To die for the King is to die for the
country. The Army and the Navy are the King’s Army and Navy. The King
grants commissions; the King is supposed to direct military operations.
The King is the First Gentleman in his country. When one reads the
words which used to be addressed to such a man as Charles the Second
one has to remember these things. Charles the Second, unworthy as he
was in his private life, was still the representative of the nation.
Therefore, to ascribe to that unworthy person these virtues which were
so notoriously lacking was no more than a recognition of the fact that
he was King. Has, then, personal character, private honour, truth,
principle, nothing to do with kingcraft? Formerly, nothing or next
to nothing. Now, everything. Another George the Fourth would now be
impossible. But he has been made impossible by the private character of
his niece.
Consider a little further the question of loyalty. I say that in 1837
among the mass of the people, even among the better class, there was
none. Indeed the loyalty of the better sort had suffered for more than
a hundred years many grievous knocks and discouragements. The first
two Georges, good and great in official language, were aliens; they
spoke a foreign tongue; they saw little of the people; yet they were
tolerated, and even popular in a way, because they steadfastly upheld
the Constitution and the Protestant religion. The third George began
well; he was a Prince always of high moral character, strong principle,
and great sincerity. Since Edward the Confessor or Henry the Sixth
there had been no Sovereign so virtuous. But his constant endeavours
to extend the Royal Prerogative, his obstinate treatment of the
American Provinces against the impassioned and reiterated entreaties of
Chatham, Burke, and the City of London, his stubborn refusal to hear
of Parliamentary Reform, his desire to govern by a few families, his
long affliction and seclusion, destroyed most of the personal affection
with which he began. His successor, the hero of a thousand caricatures,
a discredited voluptuary, never commanded the least respect except in
official addresses; nor did William the Fourth, old, without force or
character, without dignity. Wherefore, in 1837, when the cry of “Our
Young Queen” was raised, it met with little response from the great
mass of the people.
[Illustration: THE DUKE OF KENT]
In its place there was an eager looking forward to Revolution and a
Republic. There can be no doubt that in the thirties and the forties
there were many who looked forward to a Republic as actually certain;
that is to say, as certain as the next day’s sun. The Chartists
numbered many strong Republicans in their body, though the Law of
Treason forbade them to put forward the establishment of a Republic as
one of their aims. There were newspapers, however, which spoke openly
of a Republic as a matter of time only. The great European upheaval
of 1848, save for the miserable _fiasco_ of the Chartist meeting,
left this country undisturbed. Not a single Republican rising was
attempted in Great Britain. Those living men who can remember thirty
or forty years back, can very well recall the Republican ideas which
were floating about in men’s minds. Where are those ideas now? They are
gone; they exist no longer, save, perhaps, among a very small class.
I do not know even if they have an organ of their own. The reason is,
that as the Chartist movement--the agitation for Reform--was due mainly
to the widespread distress and the discontent of the country, so, when
the distress vanished, the desire for change vanished also.
[Illustration: THE DUCHESS OF KENT]
In this account of transformation the return to loyalty must be noted
first. It is not only loyalty to the Queen herself, though that is
universal, but to the Crown. There is a general feeling that the
Leader of the Nation--not the Imperator, Dictator, or Emperor, but
a nominal Leader, such as our own, one under whose presidency the
Government is carried on, who is not, however, the Government--is more
conveniently the heir of a certain family rather than a person elected
by the country at large at regular intervals. The United States think
differently. This, however, is what seems to us. We do not want a great
popular election convulsing the country once every four years with a
desperate party struggle; we have already quite as many elections as we
want; we are quite satisfied if our President succeeds when his time
comes, gives his name to the events of his reign, and continues in the
Presidential chair for life. We ask of him only to make himself as good
a figure-head as he can; we expect him to observe his coronation oath;
and we beg him, if he wishes to stay where he is, not on any account to
intrigue or scheme for the extension of the Royal Prerogative.
On the other hand, we willingly agree to attribute to a Sovereign all
the glories of the reign; as if he himself commanded the armies and the
fleets; as if he himself enlarged Science and Learning and Philosophy;
as if he himself were a leader in Literature, Science, and Art. This is
because the Sovereign is the representative of the Nation. In the same
way the disasters and miseries of the reign must also be placed to his
account, as if he himself were the author and the cause of everything.
Thus by far the greater part of the distress and discontent which
prevailed during the first years of the Reign (1837–48) was attributed
in the minds of the people as due to the Sovereign and the monarchical
forms of Government.
With the gradual return of loyalty gradually grew quieter the old
clamours for the abolition of the House of Lords. I will show you
some other reasons why this clamour ceased. First of all, in times
of prosperity political changes are never demanded. A revolution
presupposes a time of want, distress, or humiliation. We have enjoyed a
time of general prosperity for many years.
I believe that Americans find it hard to understand the continued
existence of our Upper House. Well, but something may be said for that.
Thus, the House of Lords contains about 650 possible members; of these
about thirty, or even less, and those including the Law Lords, do the
whole work of the House. These thirty are in a sense representatives
of the whole number, not regularly elected, but allowed to be the
representatives. It is quite conceivable--even by the strongest
advocate of popular election--that a body of 650 gentlemen, all of the
best possible education, nearly all advanced in years, all independent
in their circumstances, all wealthy, with no private interests to
advance, unconnected with commercial enterprise, with no companies to
support, no schemes of money-making in the background, might elect out
of their own body a Second Chamber of much greater weight and moral
authority than any body elected by the multitude. In such a House, one
would argue, there is no place for bribery, jobbery, or corruption. In
fact, there are none of these things.
[Illustration: THE DUCHESS OF KENT AND PRINCESS VICTORIA, AGE 2]
[Illustration: THE PRINCESS VICTORIA, AGE 4]
[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF PRINCESS VICTORIA, AGE 4]
But, it is objected, a caste is created, and there should be no such
thing as a caste. Perhaps not; if we were to start anew, we would have
none. Australia has none, nor New Zealand; in our case, however, the
caste is two thousand years old and more. It is venerable by reason of
its age; it would be extremely difficult to remove it; moreover, it is
a caste rendered innocuous by the simple provision that the younger
sons do not belong to it; none but the Head has any power or authority
by reason of belonging to it; it is a caste, not of so many families,
but of so many men. Moreover, English people like old institutions;
this House of Peers, therefore, is not only kept on, but is rendered
popular by the continual infusion of new blood--the continual election
to the House of new men with no family connection or influence.
Among the recently made Peers there are successful men of business:
engineers, physicians, manufacturers. Tennyson, Lister, Leighton,
Kelvin, show that a peerage is at last open to literature, science, and
law.
Again, it is objected that the House of Lords can oppose a popular
measure. So can every Upper House. But the Peers, though they often
send back measures amended, never refuse to assent to measures which
are understood to be desired by the mass of the people.
Again, any profligate may sit in the House. This is an objection which
is met by the simple fact that a Peer of well-known bad character
would not dare to present himself in the House of Lords. But the
Peers represent Norman blood and feudal ideas. Nothing of the kind.
Most of the Lords are of quite recent creation, and are sprung from
families obscure and even humble. Here is an instance. I was once
conversing with a bricklayer, an elderly man, who had formerly been a
prize-fighter. He began to talk of a certain noble family. “My father,”
he said, “used to go poaching with his grandfather. They were both
employed on the same farm. His grandfather went into the town of ----
and set up a shop for game--hares and rabbits and such--which my father
poached for him till he got took and went to prison.” The sequel is
obvious. The man who started the shop and made the other man do the
work and undergo the risk for him, got on; his son started life in a
higher plane, showed abilities, grew rich, and was eventually created
the first Peer of his family. This is perhaps an extreme case; but the
point is that Englishmen are constantly working their way to the front
by sheer ability and without any family influence whatever; that when
they are well to the front they receive Peerages; that the whole family
is thereby raised in the social scale; and that every Peer represents
a network of cousins, nephews, and relations, who rejoice in his rank
because it lends them too a certain social superiority.
[Illustration: PIERREPONT PARK, BROADSTAIRS, KENT
One of the early Residences of the Queen]
[Illustration: Victoria
Kensington Palace
1826 December]
[Illustration: PRINCESS VICTORIA, AGE 6]
[Illustration: THE MUSIC-ROOM AT PIERREPONT PARK]
For these and other reasons, the outcry against the House of Lords has
ceased. It will perhaps revive again, but in some milder form; for the
old assertion of rank, the former haughtiness of the aristocrat, has
been greatly mitigated: in the last century it was complained at Bath
that noble Lords would not even enter the society of plain gentlemen;
it is now understood that whatever may be a man’s rank, he cannot be
any more than a gentleman. Rank gives him precedence: a seat in the
House of Lords, but no more; this is all he can claim.
A third cry, which used to be loud and general, but is now greatly
reduced in volume, is the disestablishment of the Church of England.
A large and powerful society has been working for this end for many
years. Members have been sent up to the House, pledged to bring
about these results. Yet the Church remains. When the Irish Church
was disestablished, nearly thirty years ago, every one said that the
English Church would go next. What excellent prophets we are. How many
similar predictions do I remember! The Irish Church was disestablished
because it was not the Church of the people, but of a small section.
The English Church remains, because it is the Church of the majority,
and is without doubt becoming more so every year. The Churches are
crammed with people--of the better sort: the working-man, though as a
rule he does not go to Church, has learned during the last sixty years
to regard the Establishment with friendliness and respect, if not with
gratitude and affection.
[Illustration: KENSINGTON PALACE IN 1819]
We see in this country at the present day a loyalty to the Crown,
to equal which we must go back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and
for the same principal reasons, a Sovereign personally respected and
beloved, a period of marvellous expansive prosperity and advancement
of every kind. We see the Republican form of Government no longer
advocated; the House of Lords no longer attacked; the old cry for
the disestablishment of the Church growing daily weaker; the See of
Canterbury extending everywhere its authority, and promising to become
the Rome of the Episcopal Church.
I call attention to another point. Everybody knows that a great part
of the history of this country consists of the long and never-ending
struggles of the King to extend his prerogative, and of the people to
maintain their rights. To observe that the reign of Queen Victoria
presents not one single instance of a desire on the Queen’s part
to extend her powers--those powers are much less than those of the
President of the United States--she has been contented with them.
Again, she has welcomed every act of reform; she has always shown a
perfect trust in the whole people; she has clung to no small clique
of families; she has admitted no reservation of aristocratic caste;
she has willingly received as her ministers such men as Gladstone,
Disraeli, John Morley, James Bryce, and others who have no pretensions
whatever to aristocratic descent; she has been, in a word, entirely
loyal to the Constitution: she has lived, not for herself, but for the
Empire.
It is impossible here to avoid saying--what every one else writing
on this subject has already said--something about the extent and
population of the British Empire. Under the Union Jack at this moment
there lie the British Islands, Egypt, India, Burmah, a part of Borneo,
Australia, New Zealand, the Dominion of Canada, the West Indies, South,
East, and West Africa, with innumerable islands scattered over the face
of the whole globe. A great deal of this territory has been acquired
since the year 1837: at that time vast tracts of it were worthless
deserts, for which no one ventured to predict a future. Australia
contained a few thousand whites; New Zealand, not half a dozen; South
Africa was the Cape and nothing more; Canada contained only the two
divisions; there was no emigration--there was no thought of emigration.
The exports and imports of the country, though they were thought large
at the time, were only worth a hundred millions sterling, against
four hundred millions at the present day. The national debt in 1837
amounted to 30 per cent of the wealth of the whole country: at present
it is 7¼ per cent on that wealth. In 1837 there were 28,000 merchant
ships belonging to Great Britain and her colonies: at present there
are about the same number, but with four times the tonnage. And so on
with tables of figures which show the advance made by the country in
every branch of industry and enterprise. Above all things, we may look
round and observe that, just as on the site of Fort Dearborn of 1837
now stands the splendid city of Chicago of 1897, so, where there was
nothing in 1837 but wild plain and lonely hill, there now stand crowded
and busy cities like Melbourne and Sydney: there now lie bathed in the
golden sunlight populous colonies like Manitoba and British Columbia:
there now look upward in their youth of hope nations like New Zealand.
Great Britain in sixty years has become the mother of four nations.
Yet a little while, a few years, and these nations--federated Canada,
federated Australia, federated South Africa, United New Zealand--will
be four independent nations, proud, strong, eager to meet whatever
fortune may send them, with the prayers and the blessings of the little
Island whence they sprang.
[Illustration: KENSINGTON PALACE IN 1897]
It remains to be seen what reception they will get from the United
States; whether there will be only five independent Anglo-Saxon
countries allied with each other and the mother country by bonds never
to be broken, while the sixth still holds aloof; or whether the five
shall become six, all independent, neither one before nor after the
others, and so the unity of the race be preserved, and its destiny as
the leader of the world be assured.
As for the public and the private life of the Queen I have told you
that I know no more than you yourselves. That she ascended the throne,
a young girl of eighteen; that she married happily; that she has been
blessed with many children; that she has lost her husband and two
of her children, and more than two of her grandchildren, you know
already. Despite the fierce light that beats upon the throne, there is
nothing--absolutely nothing--in her long occupation of that seat which
has to be concealed or defended. No prince has ever occupied a throne
with greater loyalty to his people’s liberties; nay, those liberties
have increased and broadened without a word from the Queen to stay
their advance. Religious disabilities have vanished: the Catholic,
the Dissenter, the Jew, the Atheist are on the same level with the
Anglican; the Franchise has widened, without a sign of opposition from
the Queen. It may be said that she has been admirably advised. Perhaps
you will acknowledge, however, that it is the first characteristic of a
noble mind that it can understand, and will listen to, advice.
Foreigners cannot, perhaps, fully understand the depth and the reality
of that loyalty of which I have spoken--it is a personal as well as
constitutional loyalty--they can, however, understand, and they will
acknowledge, that there has never lived upon the earth a woman who in
her lifetime has created, and has inspired, and has possessed so much
affection, respect, and confidence from all parts of the world.
Of the good woman what sayeth the wise King Lemuel--who wrote too
little--from the oracle which his mother taught him?
She spreadeth out her hand to the poor;
Yea, she reacheth forth her hand to the needy.
Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she laugheth at the time to come.
She openeth her mouth with wisdom,
And the law of kindness is on her tongue.
Her children rise up and call her blessed:
A woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
Give her of the fruit of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]