QUEEN VICTORIA’S TRAGIC MISTAKE
“It is really horrible that any family should be reduced to
thank God for _the blessing_ of depriving them of one of
its dearest members.”--_Lady Sophia Hastings._
“I think everyone should _own_ their fault in a kind way
to anyone, be he or she the lowest--if one has been rude to
or injured them by word or deed, especially those below you.
People will readily forget an insult or an injury when others
_own_ their fault, and express sorrow or regret at what
they have done.”--_Queen Victoria._
It was in 1839 that the most sad and regrettable event in the personal
story of Queen Victoria’s reign took place, the affair known as the
Lady Flora Hastings Scandal. Lady Flora, who was the eldest daughter of
the Marquis of Hastings and of Lady Hastings--Countess of Loudoun in
her own right--had been Lady in Waiting to the Duchess of Kent since
1834. Her name occurs as attending the Duchess at all Royal functions,
and there was a feeling of real affection between her mistress and
herself. In 1839 she was thirty-three years of age, a woman who had
proved her uprightness and sincerity, yet, because of dissension at
Court, because of the curious friction between the Queen and her
mother, she was subjected to the bitterest calumnies.
Ever since her accession the gulf between the Queen and the Duchess
had been widening, and there can be little doubt that Lehzen on the
one hand and Conroy on the other were the people who, willingly or
otherwise, were the cause of this. Victoria seems to have put the
Baroness so high in her regard as to give her the place which the
Duchess, with every justice and right, should have held. This was shown
publicly as well as privately, for I have seen a paragraph in one paper
of the day, that is to say of January, 1839, commenting upon the fact
that the Queen had been three times to the theatre, accompanied on each
occasion by the Baroness Lehzen, but not at all by the Duchess. The
two Royal ladies lived, it is true, in the same house, and the Queen’s
mother attended the Royal dinner table, and sat in the drawing-room
afterwards with her daughter’s guests; but beyond that they were
drifting towards a real and painful separation. The stories of Lehzen’s
rudeness to the Duchess were not without foundation, and her spite
against the Conroy family had in no way abated; thus, as Lady Flora was
friendly with the Conroys and was regarded as one of the “set” around
the Duchess she also was not much in favour.
In all quarrels there is some exaggeration, and some imagination as
well as some truth; there is also generally great difficulty in justly
deciding who is to blame; therefore it was only natural at the time
that there should have been many who believed the calumnies against
Lady Flora in spite of all the evidence in her favour. But to-day it is
quite certain that she is fully exculpated, that she alone comes out of
the trouble with honour.
Lady Flora returned from Scotland early in the year to her duties
about the Duchess, feeling very unwell; so much so that she consulted
Sir James Clark, physician both to the Duchess and to Her Majesty.
The medical treatment and the exercise prescribed did her good, the
swelling in her body subsided, and she thought she would soon be quite
well. But this enlargement of her figure had given rise to a certain
suspicion in the mind of the physician, which he was not man enough to
mention delicately or professionally to his patient. He thought about
it first, and then went to Lady Portman, one of the Queen’s ladies in
waiting, and told her what he believed. Hearing such a thing from the
doctor who had been in attendance upon Lady Flora made the suggestion a
fact to Lady Portman.
The story goes that she confided in Lady Tavistock, who thought it her
duty to repeat the information to Lord Melbourne, and eventually some
or all of them laid the matter before the Queen. What share Baroness
Lehzen bore in this little plot--for the way in which it was guarded
from the persons really interested gave it the semblance of a plot--it
is not easy to say, but later she was accused of being the centre of
offence. It is probable that advice was all she tendered, but if that
is so it was very bad advice, and it led the young Queen, who should
have been above all meannesses, to do that which should and did cost
her passionate regret and many tears. In the first instance, she was
impulsively harsh and suspicious; when it was proved that there was
no cause for either harshness or suspicion, she was just as repentant
and eager to make amends. But when in the bitterly disturbed state of
society the scandal grew out of hand and some signal mark was needed
from her to clear Lady Flora’s honour, all her kindliness froze. She
would neither take the blame nor allot it, but treated the whole affair
with a stony silence. This was a terrible mistake! If only she could
have put into practice the bravery of her own words, quoted at the head
of this chapter, how much better it would have been!
Once the idea of Lady Flora’s indiscretion was in Her Majesty’s mind,
her only, absolutely her only, honourable course would have been either
to see Lady Flora herself, or, if that seemed too difficult, to consult
her mother, the Duchess of Kent. But the Queen was so blinded by her
advisers or by her prejudices that she took the whole matter into
her own hands, and sent Sir James Clark to interview Lady Flora. The
following is part of a letter written about Lady Flora on March 7th by
the Marchioness of Hastings to her son-in-law, Captain Charles Henry.
[Illustration: LADY FLORA HASTINGS.]
“Sir James Clark, shocking to tell, accused her of being privately
married, and you can imagine her indignation and horror. She flatly
denied it, and then this ambassador said that nothing but a medical
examination by himself and another would ‘clear her character and
satisfy the ladies of the Court.’ From her he went to the Duchess (of
Kent), who resented the insult instantly. He was followed by Lady
Portman, who was deputed by the Queen to desire she would not appear
before her till ‘her character was cleared’ by this most revolting
proposal. The dear, dear Duchess could not make up her mind to this;
Flora desired it. Two persons have been named as those suspected of
her shame, Sir John Conroy, who has been like a father in his care of
her, and Lord Headfort, evidently as a cloak to the attempt which was
to separate Flora and the Duchess’s old and attached servant from her.
Flora persisted, and the Speaker (?) and Sir John Conroy both said she
was right, and the Duchess at last gave a reluctant consent. Flora
named Sir Charles Clarke in addition, and the strongest medical opinion
he and Sir James Clark could sign was given, to the confoundation of
those wicked persons who could so act. Flora wrote to Hastings (her
brother), who went up alone, and has behaved with a judgment and spirit
which is a cheer to me in so much misery. He went to Lord Melbourne,
and insisted on his thorough disavowal of having anything to do with
it; and asked an audience of the Queen. Lord Melbourne at first
refused, but Hastings insisted, and Hastings very respectfully but very
decidedly pointed out to Her Majesty the fallacy of such advisers, ‘be
they who they may,’ who could recommend such a course to her. Sorry
am I to say Lady Tavistock does not stand clear of wickedness and
vile gossip at least, but Lady Portman took the messages, after _a
man_ was sent to make the base attack on my poor child. The Duchess
kept by her, and refused till ample reparation was made to go either
to dinner or in the evening. To-morrow I will send you part of her
dear letter about my darling Flo. I dare add no more. The Queen sent
for Flora, the tears were in her eyes (I am glad they were so), and
expressed her sorrow. She (Flora) took it rightly, but added, ‘I must
respectfully observe, Madam, I am the first, and I trust I shall be the
last, Hastings ever so treated by their Sovereign. I was treated as if
guilty without a trial.’ She took it very well, and has been markedly
kind to her since. Sir James Clark has been dismissed by the Duchess.”
This letter from the Duchess of Kent was sent to the Countess of
Loudoun:--
“Buckingham Palace, _5th March, 1839_.”
“MY DEAR LADY HASTINGS,
“Our beloved Lady Flora will tell you all the dreadful things
that have occurred here; I will only say that no mother could
have defended a daughter more than I have done her. She is of
all her sex that being that most deserves it, and she stands
on the highest ground. This attack, my dear Lady Hastings, was
levelled at me through your innocent child. But God spared us!
“Believe me, the hour will come when the Queen will see and
feel what she has been betrayed into. When your first feeling
of indignation subsides, for mine knew no bounds, you will in
your nobleness of soul view with scorn all these proceedings. I
cannot say more. I have stood by your child and your house as if
all was my own. Believe me, with the truest affection and esteem,
“Your devoted friend,
“VICTORIA.”
Lady Flora’s first letter on this matter, written to her sister and
brother-in-law, runs as follows:--
“MY DEAR CHARLES AND SELINA,
“Though I know neither of you would ever believe (were the
Angel Gabriel to reveal it to you) anything evil of old Flo, I
must not let you hear from others the horrible conspiracy from
which it has pleased God to preserve me. It is evidently got
up by Lehzen, who has found willing tools in Ladies Tavistock
and Portman and Sir James Clark; evidently ultimately directed
against the Duchess (of Kent), though primarily against me.
The means employed were to blacken my character, and represent
me to be--I can scarce write the words!--with child! I have no
time for particulars to-day, but will write you fully to-morrow.
I have come out gloriously. I underwent as they demanded,
and the Queen urged by them did also, the most rigid medical
examination, and have the fullest certificate of my innocence,
signed by Sir James Clark and Sir Charles Clarke. My Duchess
could not have been kinder had she been my mother; she is one
of the noblest of human beings--Hastings came to town instantly
and behaved like an angel, with such judgment and affection!
All my real friends have been very true to me and very kind
to me. I would not write thus hurriedly, but I hear it has
reached the Clubs, and I fear your learning it from another
source, and being anxious about me. It made me very ill for two
or three days, I was so shocked and shattered. The poor Queen
was sadly misled in the business; she did not know what she did
and sanctioned; she is very sorry. I hear at the Clubs they
have named two or three names with mine; one is poor Sir John
Conroy’s. How infamous. No one, thank God, however, is disposed
to think ill of our father and mother’s child, nor has my
conduct been such as to encourage evil thoughts of me, and I am
told people are vehement at the insult I have received.”
Lady Flora complained of the way in which this examination was
conducted, and her maid, who was present, spoke of the roughness and
indecency shown. Later, when she was delirious, she accused the doctors
who attended her of saying she was like a married woman. During the
preliminaries Sir Charles Clarke, a specialist in midwifery, said
kindly, “Lady Flora’s answers are so satisfactory that we need proceed
no further,” to which “that brute, Sir James Clark” (to quote from Lady
Sophia) answered, “If Lady Flora is so sure of her innocence, she can
have no objection to what is proposed.”
There was little chance of keeping such an affair quiet. From club
to newspaper was but a step, and by the 10th of March Lady Adelaide
Hastings, a sister of Lady Flora, wrote: “It is known all over London,
and _The Morning Post_, though without the names, spoke so
distinctly of the whole occurrence that there is no hiding it, even
were there any advantage in so doing. In the whole truth there is
nothing that is not honourable to all but the Queen, her Ladies, and
Sir James Clark. The Duchess (of Kent), whose conduct has been most
kind and like a mother to our dear sister, and who bitterly feels the
insult, dismissed him from her household immediately. He is a wretch
to have allowed himself to be put forward as the tool of those base
women, and as a man and a physician has acted infamously. The Queen has
not yet dismissed him, but I think she must, at least if she has any
regard to public opinion, which loudly calls at least for his disgrace.
The Queen has been misled and duped, I think. I cannot believe that
she knew all that was said in her name, or that the message Lady
Portman brought us, as from her, had her real sanction. One would
think nineteen was too young for a woman so to forget what was due to
a mother, and to have so little regard for the feelings of one she
had lived in intimacy with. You will be grieved to hear that Lord
Harewood’s daughter (Lady Portman) could have acted as Lady Portman
has done, but she acted very ill. After giving the Queen’s message to
Flora (and, observe, it was not till after Sir James Clark’s insulting
charge), she went ‘by command’ to communicate it to the Duchess, on
whose saying, ‘She knew Flora and her family too well to listen to such
an imputation of that kind on her,’ Lady Portman insisted on asserting
it, as Flora says in her letter, ‘with a degree of pertinacity
amounting to violence.’ The Duchess refused to see her again. The
Duchess wrote Mamma a letter full of affection for Flora, and praise of
her conduct, and evidently bitterly feeling the Queen’s conduct. She
came and sat with Flora in her room that evening to try and comfort
her, and has indeed all along been most affectionate, but it is a sad
thing to feel that because they are so faithful to her, her friend and
servant must be exposed to indignity from her daughter. It was the 16th
of last month this took place. The Duchess and Flora stayed in her own
apartments for a week, as she said she would not associate with the
rest of the inhabitants of the Palace, till proper apologies had been
made. She was then induced to receive their ample apologies, as the
Minister (the Duke of Wellington,[5] who Flora says has behaved kindly
and like a good soldier) represented that it would injure the Queen if
she held out any longer.”
So far as this the matter was a most unhappy mistake, caused by gossip
and uncharitableness on the part of some, and by ignorance and an
unnatural prejudice on the part of the Queen. Had Victoria taken some
means, in addition to that of expressing her sorrow, of showing that
the blame was on her side, things would have smoothed down, and we
might never have heard of the affair. But she did nothing. The watching
public began to grow curious; if neither the doctor nor the two ladies
were sufficiently to blame to warrant dismissal, had there been some
truth in the charge after all? it not unnaturally asked. The two
following extracts from letters written by Lady Sophia Hastings show
the next stage of the scandal. They are hard and revengeful, and give
an impression of being the reflex of the prevailing bitter political
agitation as much as the result of the injury to the family.
“---- have given up Sir James Clark as their physician, and many
medical men have refused to meet him in consultation, as they, and Sir
Henry Halford among them, say he has cast an odium on the profession.
I hear they cried out, either in the Park or in the Theatre, to the
Queen, ‘Dismiss Lady Portman,’ and on Saturday she was hissed in the
Park. I hope this may bring her to her senses, and make her give up
the unfit people who are about her. The Royal Family have felt very
properly about this. Princess Sophia sent Mamma a message through Dr.
Doyle, who had seen her, expressive of her sympathy, and the Duchess of
Gloucester spoke in the same way, both reprobating the conduct of the
Queen. Even Lord Melbourne’s friends say, ‘It was a great oversight not
to dismiss Sir James Clark.’ The report is, _he_ says, ‘they dare
not dismiss him for fear of his telling things.’”
Again: “I am so angry with the whole pack. As long as they thought they
could keep matters quiet, and hide their own disgrace, they were all
so amiable, and the Queen so gracious to Flora. Since her family have
resented the affront, Her Majesty takes no notice, pays her not the
slightest attention for weeks, till after she was so ill she had two
medical men attending her for days, Her Majesty sends to inquire for
her. The child’s notice is worth nothing, but it shows the disgusting
meanness of the clique. Lady Tavistock keeps _rubbing against_
Flora at parties, following her, and trying to force herself on her
acquaintance. None of them appear _in the least_ sensible of
the generous forbearance which has spared their public disgrace and
conviction for the sake of their families. They go on as if _they_
were injured. Oh, how I hate them!”
This attitude of the Queen, who was evidently determined that she would
dismiss no one, and do nothing that would satisfy the public that Lady
Flora was innocent, and who resented the demand upon her that she
should do so as much as the Hastings resented the charge made against
a member of their family, led to very bad results. Before the end of
March gossip had but one theme, and that was the probable guilt of Lady
Flora Hastings. The talk was not confined to London; Paris, Brussels,
and Vienna were discussing the matter with interest; so much so that
Captain Hamilton FitzGerald, who had married Lady Charlotte Rawdon,
sister of the late Marquis of Hastings, wrote a letter to _The
Examiner_, which was copied into all the other papers. It was a
temperate, fair, and clear account of what had taken place, throwing no
imputation upon anyone; and it included the following paragraph about
Victoria: “Lady Flora is convinced that the Queen was surprised into
the order which was given, and that Her Majesty did not understand what
she was betrayed into; for, ever since the horrid event, Her Majesty
has shown her regret by the most gracious kindness to Lady Flora, and
expressed it warmly, with ‘tears in her eyes.’”
Captain FitzGerald was considerably blamed by various people for
this letter, so much so that two months later--an evidence of the
continuance of the scandal, which had by that time assumed very serious
proportions--he wrote a second and a third letter, which he sent to the
Marchioness of Hastings, as well as copies to Flora Hastings’ brother,
begging that they should be shown to everyone interested. They ran as
follows:--
“Brussels, _May 30th, 1839_.
“I have been blamed by so many people for having made (as they
say) an unnecessary exposure of the outrage inflicted on Lady
Flora Hastings at Buckingham Palace that I think it necessary
to explain why I published a narrative of the principal facts
attending it. I was living at Brussels when it occurred;
everyone there knew of it before I did. On the 13th of March I
received a letter from England giving me a minute detail of what
had happened, from which I thought there could not be a doubt of
her innocence, and that her brother had fully done his duty. I
was soon undeceived. Letters poured in upon me from all quarters
containing the same injurious reports. I found that Lord
Hastings’ proceedings were unknown, except in his own circle,
and at Buckingham Palace; that he was abused in the London Clubs
for not having acted with sufficient spirit, and that infamous
stories were circulated about his sister, under the old plea of
propagating lies with strictest injunctions to secrecy. Everyone
except her own family are acquainted with them. Whenever I tried
to trace them to their source,
I was met by the same answer: ‘I cannot give up my authority,
and I must beg of you not to quote me, but I assure you the
report is very generally believed.’ It was said that the present
was at least the second error, as when she left Buckingham
Palace last year she was certainly pregnant. Bets were laid on
the time when her situation would force her to ‘bolt’ from the
Palace! At Vienna it was believed on the 15th of March that she
had remained an hour on her knees begging mercy of the Queen,
and that Lord Hastings having, as a Peer, forced his way into
the Royal presence, had upbraided Her Majesty, who made him no
answer, but curtsied and retired when his tirade was over! I
immediately went to England; when I arrived in London I found
all these reports in circulation. Lady Flora’s family were not
in town, and the generality of indifferent people were inclined
to believe them. The known fact that no one of the Queen’s
household had been punished for the insult she had received
seemed to say that the Government did not think her assailants
deserved punishment, or, in other words, that she had not been
ill-treated by them. The inference from which was, that she
had been favoured and spared from motives of humanity. Nothing
seemed to me to prevent the complete establishment of this
opinion, but the prompt punishment which the Duchess of Kent
had inflicted on Sir James Clark by dismissing him from Her
Royal Highness’s household. I landed in the City, and remained
there many days to ascertain what judgment the respectable
and unprejudiced citizens had passed on the case. I consulted
with many persons, and by their assistance was present at
many discussions held by people who did not know me, at those
respectable houses where men of business pass their evenings,
and discuss the news and speculations. I found public opinion
was universally against Lady Flora. The general idea was that
‘she had been treated with unnecessary harshness,’ that she
‘should have been got quietly out of the way,’ that ‘such things
occurred every day in palaces, people who place their daughters
in them must take the consequences of doing so.’ It was often
said ‘her brother would not have been so quiet if he had not
known that more than he liked would have come out if the thing
had not been hushed up.’ I concluded that the opinion of the
people at large was the same as that of the people of London,
as they were both acted on by the same fallacious evidence,
anonymous statements in newspapers; and I was confirmed in my
original opinion that it was the duty of Lady Flora’s family
to extinguish all false reports by publishing a full statement
of the case, and openly challenging contradiction. I felt that
Lord Hastings could not do himself justice in publishing his
own acts, and that delicacy, brotherly love, and family pride
might prevent him from being sufficiently accurate and minute in
stating his sister’s wrongs. I therefore determined to publish
it myself.
“HAMILTON FITZGERALD.”
To the Marchioness of Hastings (Countess of Loudoun) Captain FitzGerald
wrote:--
“DEAR LADY HASTINGS,--The manner in which I find
myself avoided by ‘serviles’ for having exposed their infamy
made it necessary for me to write my reasons for publishing. I
sent Hastings a copy of it, and I now send you one. I have no
idea of publishing it, unless unforeseen circumstances do not
make it useful to do, but I beg of you either to show it, or
give a copy of it to anyone you choose. My first was a statement
of the facts, this is one of the lies of the infamous; the
actors knew that Flora’s established character would show off
their filth, so they tried to sap it. I have both Lady Portman’s
and Lady Tavistock’s statement of their conduct. By the former
it appears the doctor went _of his own accord_ to tell
his suspicions to Lady Portman, and asked her opinion. This
proves breach of trust, plotting, and malignity. Why, if he
had suspicions, did he not go to the Duchess of Kent? No! that
would have stopped his agitation. Why did Lady Portman reduce
an unanswerable examination into a doubtful consultation of
physicians on the state of Flora’s health? Because she knew it
would have answered all the lies in circulation about former
misconduct. But, bad as all this is, it is not as bad as Lady
Tavistock’s conduct. She says when she heard the reports in
February she wished to have spoken of them to Flora, but was
prevented by circumstances, and it became her duty to tell the
Prime Minister of them. What, I should like to know, prevented
her speaking to Flora? It could be nothing but a combination
having decided that neither Flora nor her Royal Mistress should
be informed of what was going on. Lord Melbourne, having been
informed of it, should either have stopped it, or informed
the Duchess of it, if he believed the report. I think Lady
Tavistock’s short note would convict her and Lord Melbourne
before any court in London.”
Of course, these letters present the case from one side; the pity is
that nothing remains in the way of evidence upon the other. The Queen
seems to have thought that the private expression of her sorrow was
sufficient. She did not realise, or she chose to ignore, that her very
position made the matter a public one, and that the whole country was
talking about and discussing the probability of Lady Flora’s guilt.
Either she herself had taken too great a part in the humiliation of
Lady Flora to allow herself to show displeasure to anyone without being
unjust, or she was obstinately determined to do and say no more to
clear her mother’s friend and servant, or she was screening one of her
own people. Lady Flora’s reputation would probably have suffered all
through a long life had she lived, because of the Queen’s silence and
disregard, but the illness which had afflicted her early in the year
returned, and she died in July.
Of this the Tories, who were, as has been said, in an excited,
disaffected state, made great capital. Their papers announced the
illness of Lady Flora, but ignored the mention of any specific disease;
she was raised to the position of a martyr that the Queen might be the
more effectually denounced. “Poor girl! the wound has not been healed,
and the calumniated lady is sinking under a blow inflicted by the yet
unpunished slanderers, who still seek the favour of the Sovereign
in the very Palace where the victim of their fiendish and indelicate
malignity is lying with breaking heart and bowed down spirit. She has
borne up nobly against the flood of demonised falsehood which has been
let loose upon her; now Nature can no longer sustain the contest, and
the body is prostrated by the agony of the mind. We dare not trust
ourselves to speak as we feel, but this we will say, that if Lady Flora
Hastings die, her death will fling a blight upon the Palace, which
Royal banquetings will never overcome, and regal smiles never make to
pass away.”
This is but a sample of many articles and paragraphs. The Baroness
Lehzen, though her name had not publicly appeared in the trouble,
was regarded generally as the most obnoxious person about the Court,
probably because she was never known to give counsel, and yet was
believed to be always whispering in the ear of the Queen.
Lord Tavistock and Lord Portman both wrote to the papers in defence of
their wives, the former denying that Lady Tavistock had taken any part
in the Flora Hastings trouble; the latter asserting that Lady Portman
did, on that painful occasion, neither more nor less than her duty
towards the Court, towards Lady Flora Hastings herself, and towards the
people of England, to whom, while in waiting upon her Sovereign, she
was constitutionally responsible. Lord Portman, however, went further
than this, if newspaper correspondents are to be believed. On the 3rd
of April he took the chair when the Guardians of the Blandford district
dined together; and on his wife’s health being drunk he in his reply
alluded to Lady Flora Hastings, saying that the conduct of Lady Portman
required no vindication, as a few months would testify.
With such hardness as this around her, one understands that the Queen
may also have grown somewhat hard; yet even if Lady Portman did not
credit the doctors’ certificate, the Queen could not have ignored it.
It is only possible to think that she did not understand what the
results of her own inaction must be; yet from the beginning there were
many who would have echoed Greville’s biting comment on the affair had
they heard it:--
“It is certain that the Court is plunged in shame and mortification at
the exposure, that the Palace is full of bickerings and heart-burning,
while the whole proceeding is looked upon by society at large as to the
last degree disgusting and disgraceful. It is really an exemplification
of the saying that kings and valets are made of the refuse clay of
creation; for though such things sometimes happen in the servants’
hall, and housekeepers charge stillroom and kitchen maids with frailty,
they are unprecedented and unheard-of in good society, and among
people in high or even in respectable stations. It is inconceivable
how Melbourne can have permitted this disgraceful and mischievous
scandal, which cannot fail to lower the character of the Court in the
eyes of the world. There may be objections to Melbourne’s extraordinary
domiciliation in the Palace, but the compensation ought to be found
in his good sense and experience preventing the possibility of such
_tricasseries_ as these.”
In June, Lady Flora suffered from what was regarded as a bilious
fever, from which she seemed to be recovering; but it returned,
and the vomiting weakened her so much that her physician--Dr.
Chambers--suggested that some relatives should come to stay with her
at the Palace. So her sister, Lady Sophia, went, and was there until
all was over; and so filled with bitterness was she at the treatment
given to Lady Flora that she would not have a bed prepared for her, but
rested when necessary on the sofa.
Lady Portman was said to be in great distress of mind during the last
illness of her victim, but it was not sufficient to prevent her from
amusing herself in the gay world, and she seems to have made some
remarks which aggravated the injury which she had done. Lady Selina
Henry, another sister, wrote while Flora was ill:--“In a letter from
Sophia to me there is a speech of Lady Portman’s repeated so gross that
she must be a beast; Flora says, ‘As for Ladies Tavistock and Portman,
I can never open my lips to them again.’ I think she knows this horror
that Lady Portman has said.”
[Illustration: LADY PORTMAN.]
Lady Tavistock seems to have felt some compunction in having
interfered, for the day before Flora died her doctor received the
following clumsy and ineffective note from Lord Tavistock:--
“Spring Gardens, _July 4th, 1839_.
“DEAR DR. CHAMBERS,--If you see a favourable
opportunity, Lady Tavistock wishes much you would say a kind
word for her to Lady F. Hastings, towards whom she has not
only never harboured an unkindly thought, but has been deeply
interested in her well-being. She has been greatly distressed
by the cruel and unfounded attacks that have so long been made
upon her in some newspapers, and it would afford her pleasure to
be able to convey a message of kindness to your patient, if you
think it could be done without disturbing her; but you will, of
course, exercise your own judgment and discretion about naming
the subject to her.--Yours truly, TAVISTOCK.”
Dr. Chambers took this letter to Lady Sophia Hastings, who returned the
following answer:--
“If I would have given the message, it is now beyond her comprehension,
but you may say--if it would be any consolation to Lady Tavistock--I
refer her to the Bishop of London.” In telling her mother of this
reply, Sophia adds, “I hear Princess Sophia was enchanted when Lady
Cornwallis told her this yesterday. She is very anxious to know if
anything of regret had been expressed.”
As to this matter of regret, though it was expressed for the death of
Flora Hastings, it was, as far as I can find out, only once connected
with any allusion to the scandal. The Queen sent for Dr. Chambers and
saw him alone, though the Baroness was in the next room. Her Majesty
seemed much subdued, and after thanking him for the report he had sent,
expressed her sorrow that suffering had been added to bodily illness.
Lady Sophia commented upon this:--
“I told him I was very glad Her Majesty should have appeared to feel,
and that she had done me the honour to enquire for me this morning.
The Duchess of Gloucester was very much displeased she had not done it
before, tho’ I believe she sent down that sad Friday morning, when I
was collecting poor Flora’s things, and I have an indistinct idea of
sending some answer, or Reichenbach (Lady Flora’s maid) did for me.”
A State ball arranged for Friday, June 28th, was postponed because of
“the melancholy state of Lady Flora Hastings,” and a Royal banquet
arranged for July 4th, the day on which Lady Flora died, was also
countermanded. The Countess of Loudoun wrote some impassioned letters
to the Queen, which eventually drew from Lord Melbourne the response
that the Queen had acknowledged the unhappy error to Lady Flora, and
it was not intended that any other step should be taken. This decision
was, most unfortunately, adhered to. It may be that Melbourne, always
praised for his generosity of mind, may have urged a different course
upon his Royal mistress, and that she, swayed by less wise counsels or
by her own pride, would not heed him. But it seems never to have been
acknowledged by the Court that the terrible publicity given to the
affair, which had been eagerly seized upon in the interest of party by
the Press, had altered the whole matter, and that action of some sort
was imperatively demanded. Lord Melbourne, who hated rows, who was
inclined to concede too much rather than too little to obtain peace,
and who was one of the justest and kindest of men, must have suffered
torment through this period.
If only Her Majesty had been royal enough and wise enough to have made
public the affair from her point of view, and, if she shrank from
ruining a man like Clark by dismissing him, have boldly said that she
could not do it, this matter would not have remained to burden her
thoughts with shame; but she wrapped herself in an inadequate covering
of dignity, trying to believe the antiquated saying that a Queen can do
no wrong. As a matter of fact, Dr. Clark entirely lost his reputation
with the public over this matter, and there is something pathetic in
the request Victoria made to Albert before their marriage:
“I have a request to make too, viz., that you will appoint poor Clark
your physician; you need not consult him unless you wish it. It is only
an honorary title, and would make him very happy.” Whether the Prince
did this I do not know. To the end of the Queen’s life this tragic
affair must have pained Her Majesty; and she certainly wished it to be
forgotten by everyone, for never anywhere is there given any mention
of it. It is ignored in most of the “lives” of Her Majesty, and every
scrap of allusion to it is withdrawn from her own letters and writings;
she herself later wrote of destroying most of the letters which
belonged to that, “the most unsatisfactory” period of her life. It must
not be forgotten that the deepest injury of all was inflicted by those
who were the first to make this matter public, that is to say, by those
who first reported it, for unworthy reasons, in the public Press. Many
mistakes as bad as this have been made and atoned for--in private, and
the sense of injury has disappeared; but when all the world knows of a
shameful thing, then the atonement should be public.
When Lord Hastings paid the doctors and nurses, his money was returned
with the information that handsome fees had been received. Lady Flora’s
maid showed him a brooch and a banknote for £50, which she offered
to put in the fire; this he advised her not to do, so she banked it.
Though it is not asserted in so many words, it is implied that the
Queen had taken this way of showing her compunction. The presents to
the maid had been conveyed to her through Viscountess Forbes. Lady
Sophia, anxious as she was all through to show the keenness of her
resentment, secured another note of the same amount, put it in an
envelope, and returned it through the same channel. Of Lady Forbes,
Sophia writes bitterly in the following letter, in which she also
emphasises the painful position of the Duchess of Kent:--
“I found Dr. Chambers knew _nothing accurately_ of Sir James
Clark’s conduct, so I told him the real state of the case; and as at
Harewood and at Lord Tavistock’s they had not told him the facts, I
did. I parted from him with more feeling of regret than I did from
anyone else. I saw the poor Duchess of Kent, who is ‘floored,’ I think.
She was very kind to me, and about all of us; but she is beat down, she
can fight no longer, and she will soon be completely under orders. I
saw Fanny Forbes (Viscountess Forbes) and cleared my mind to her of her
conduct. I cannot say that there was much good feeling in her going to
the Opera every night, tho’ the Queen told her she need not; and tho’
she came in when she came back, her flighty, flirty, lively manner,
just out of the world, jarred horribly with one’s feelings. When one
night she came in with a _jaunty_ step, we had just kept Flora
from a fainting fit, and had sent off for Mr. Merriman, as he had told
us such an attack might at any time prove fatal. When Mr. M---- came
I said, ‘Thank God it is only a fainting fit,’ and he said in such a
melancholy way, ‘_Only_ a fainting fit, Lady Sophia, and who could
tell how that might end?’ And Lady Forbes says she loved Flora like a
sister, and anxiety and watching has afflicted her health! She offered
to give back the hair Reichenbach gave her [after Lady Flora was dead],
but will not take out that given her by the Queen. I told her that hair
was probably false, as I could not trace how the Queen got it, but that
she did not care for. The Duchess of Kent did _not_ give it, for I
asked her.”
To remove entirely any lingering feeling of doubt, Lady Sophia caused a
post-mortem examination to be made, that a definite name might be given
to the illness which brought about her sister’s death, and she writes
thus of it to her mother:
“I have to hope, my beloved mother, that I shall not be so unhappy
as to incur your displeasure, or to have added to your agony, but if
it be, on me be the blame, for no one suggested it to me. I proposed
it to Hastings, and indeed it was due to the medical men who have
been so very attentive, and that was an ‘examination.’ It took place
at 6 o’clock yesterday evening, as late as it was possible. One was
proposed, but Chambers would put it off to a later hour. I left her at
once when he came, having wished her good-bye, and put round her neck
the locket with your and Papa’s hair, and I said that I trusted to him
that it remained there. He burst into tears, and promised me. John
remained the whole time out of respect while the surgeons were there,
and it was only a slight operation, no uncovering, nothing to wound the
feelings, not so bad as Sir James Clark. She was merely uncovered over
her stomach, as if it were a wound in her side. John put the locket on
her the last thing with his own hands, and he, Charles, and Hastings
are at the Palace every night and day, and Reichenbach and the nurse
sit up. _Every_ respect is shown. God bless you. I am late.”
There were five doctors present at the examination, Drs. Chambers,
Holland, and Merriman, Sir A. Cooper and Sir B. Brodie. The last
officiated, and it was found that Flora Hastings died from enlargement
of the liver, which, pressing downwards, produced enlargement of the
abdomen and inflammation.
It was curious that _The Times_, then devoted to Tory influence,
should have struck a different note from the other Tory papers, and
have asked, somewhat pertinently, though much to the anger of the
Hastings family, “Did the Ladies of the Bedchamber cause the liver
complaint of which Lady Flora Hastings died?”
The death of the maligned lady brought public indignation up to
fever-heat, and the Queen wisely remained in her Palace, for to be
hissed in the street is worse than to be forced to sit silently under
a parson who has licence to outrage all one’s cherished ideas. At the
Opera one night someone asked the box-keeper if Her Majesty would be
present, and the man replied:
“Oh, no; she dare not come!”
As for the Ministry, it was deeply depressed at the whole occurrence,
and Lady Cowper told someone that her brother, Lord Melbourne, felt
that its tragic ending was the worst blow the Government had so far
received.
Lady Flora was buried at Loudoun by her own wish, for she had said, “I
do not think I shall ever look upon Loudoun again, and I wish to be
taken there. Under other circumstances I should have said, ‘let the
tree lie where it falls,’ but as it is I wish to lie there.”
At four o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, July 12th, the coffin
was removed from Buckingham Palace. The Guards and Life Guards were
under arms all Tuesday night and Wednesday morning to show respect to
the dead woman, but there was also a tremendous body of police, who
accompanied the sad procession as far as Temple Bar, where they gave
place to the City police. This was done, Sophia Hastings was told, to
prevent the Queen’s carriage from being pulled to pieces, of which she
says, “which I never expected.” The fact that the Royal carriage was
to follow was kept so secret that the rest of the Royal family did
not know what to do. The whole matter had been so turned to party
uses that they did not like to show this public mark of respect if the
Queen did not set the example. The Duchess of Gloucester found out in
time, and she vexed the Duke of Cambridge very much by not letting him
know. Princess Sophia was the only one who followed her own wishes
irrespective of the actions of her niece, saying contemptuously of the
others that they were but timeservers to care what the Queen did.
Though the hour of the start had been given as six, there was a great
and silent crowd collected to watch the carriages pass at four o’clock,
hats being lifted all along the route. Many comments of a strong
nature were uttered; thus one respectable-looking man pointed with
his stick to Her Majesty’s carriage, saying, “What is the use of her
gilded trumpery after she has killed her?” A policeman hearing this,
went up and looked the man in the face, probably hoping to recognise
or to remember him. Another man was heard to say, “Ah, there’s the
victim, but where’s the murderer?” Sophia Hastings, who retailed these
incidents with relish, said of the drive through London: “Not one thing
pained me; the feeling was respect to her, and compassionate respect
to myself, and total absence of bustle, noise, or any confusion. Even
at the wharf you might have felt in a chapel, and I am told many were
disappointed” (probably that there was no disturbance).
The following letter was sent by the Duchess of Kent, three weeks after
the calamity, to Lady Selina Henry:--
“Buckingham Palace, _July 27th, 1839_.
“MY DEAR LADY SELINA,--My servant returned only the
day before yesterday, or I would have written to you sooner
to enquire how your excellent mother was after that most sad
ceremony. I feel quite sure it is not necessary I should tell
you how sincerely I felt for her, for you, and your sisters on
that melancholy day. Also your poor sister Sophia; I fear she
was very unwell on that day. Your and my severe loss appears to
me still a dream! Alas! a very painful dream. I shall be very
much obliged to you and your sister Adelaide to let me know how
you are all. I heard from your dear sister Sophia to-day that
your mother is still at Loudoun. I hope she will soon be able to
go near the sea. Be so good as to give her my most affectionate
regards, also to remember me most kindly to your sister, and to
give my compliments to Captain Henry, who I am sorry I did not
see before I left town. I was really not in a state to see him.
Your dear sister Sophia was not very well when she left town,
but I hope the change of air and scene will be very beneficial
to her. I hope, my dear Lady Selina, you will not quite forget
the friend of our beloved Flora, and believe me always to remain,
“Your very sincere friend, VICTORIA.”
Lady Hastings died six months after her daughter. Sir James Clark did
his best to prove himself innocent of all harshness and indiscretion,
but the attempt was not very satisfactory. He retained the Queen’s
favour until he died, in 1870. Lady Portman also held Her Majesty’s
friendship until 1865, when her death occurred. As for Victoria, she
never, as has been said, broke her silence, and something like general
hatred was felt for Baroness Lehzen, who was believed to have been her
adviser all through. As Sir Sidney Lee says in his Biography of the
Queen, however cogently Victoria’s attitude might be explained, the
affair “came near proving a national calamity through the widespread
hostility which it provoked against the Court.”
Urged by some members of his family, the Marquis of Hastings sent a
full account of all that had occurred to the _Morning Post_, his
letter occupying eleven columns, and in this Melbourne was entirely
exculpated, also Baroness Lehzen, but it did not elucidate the name
of the person with whom the first suggestion arose; many believed the
Queen’s youthfully autocratic ways were at the root of the offence,
while others did their best to distribute the blame.
Lady Flora was the author of many pretty verses, and her collected
poems were published after her death. The following, “Lady Flora
Hastings’ Bequest,” which was found among her papers, was not, however,
included in the collection:--
“Oh, let the kindred circle,
Far in our Northern land,
From heart to heart draw closer
Affection’s strength’ning band;
To fill my place long vacant,
Soon may our loved ones learn;
For to our pleasant dwelling
I never shall return.
Peace to each heart that troubled
My course of happy years;
Peace to each angry spirit
That quenched my life in tears!
Let not the thought of vengeance
Be mingled with regret;
Forgive my wrongs, dear Mother!
Seek even to forget.
Give to the friend, the stranger,
Whatever once was mine,
Nor keep the smallest token
To wake fresh tears of thine,
Save one, one loved memorial,
With thee I fain would leave;
’Tis one that will not teach thee
Yet more for me to grieve.
’Twas mine when early childhood
Turn’d to its sacred page
The gay, the thoughtless glances
Of almost infant age;
’Twas mine through days yet brighter,
The joyous years of youth,
When never had affliction
Bow’d down mine ear to truth.
’Twas mine when deep devotion
Hung breathless on each line
Of pardon, peace, and promise
Till I could call them mine;
Till o’er my soul’s awakening
The gift of Heavenly love,
The spirit of adoption
Descended from above.
Unmarked, unhelped, unheeded,
In heart I’ve walked alone;
Unknown the prayers I’ve uttered,
The hopes I held unknown.
Till in the hour of trial,
Upon the mighty train,
With strength and succour laden,
To bear the weight of pain.
Then, Oh! I fain would leave thee,
For now my hours are few,
The hidden mine of treasure,
Whence all my strength I drew,
Take, then, the gift, my mother;
And, till thy path is trod,
Thy child’s last token cherish,
It is the Book of God.”
It is interesting to know that Sir James Clark was a Navy doctor, who
by the friendship of King Leopold was placed in the household of the
Duchess of Kent in 1834, and as Navy doctors have no practice among
women, he could have known very little about the matter when he so
rashly judged Lady Flora Hastings. For the last ten years of his life
he lived at Birk Hall, Bagshot Park, which was lent him by the Queen.
By those who knew him he was regarded as an estimable, upright man.