Gossip in the First Decade of Victoria's Reign

People began to feel that it was high time that the Queen should marry – but, as yet, no signs of such a thing, and no speculations, as far as I can see, were hazarded as to who her future consort should be. At length, one newspaper, the Sun, seems to have been inspired, by authority, and is thus quoted in the Times of 24 Jan.: – “‘Marriage of Her Majesty. – The country will learn with delight that the most interesting part of the speech from the throne 4 to both Houses of Parliament, and the country at large, will be the announcement of Her Majesty’s intended marriage. The happy object of Queen Victoria’s choice is Prince Albert, son of the reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, and cousin of Her Majesty. Prince Albert is handsome, and about 22 years of age. He has resided, for some time, in this country, on a visit to his Royal relatives. How soon the happy event is to take place, we are not prepared to say, but our readers may depend upon the authenticity of our information.’ —The Sun. Has not some wag been hoaxing the editor? We suspect so, though, at the same time, we do not profess to have any knowledge on the subject.”

Indeed, it was about time that the Queen married, and got out of the leading strings of the women folk who surrounded her. Had she been married, we should, probably, have never heard of the sad episode of Lady Flora Hastings.

This lady, who was highly accomplished, and the authoress of some pretty poems, 5 which were published after her death, was the eldest daughter of Francis, Marquis of Hastings, and Flora, Countess of Loudon, and was lady of the bedchamber to the Duchess of Kent. Two old busybodies, the Ladies Portman and Tavistock, spread the vile and unfounded rumour that the unfortunate lady was enceinte, and the Queen forbade Lady Flora to appear at Court until she had submitted to the indignity of a medical examination. The case called forth some very strong feeling – and a vast quantity of correspondence was published on the subject, especially the indignant letters of the poor lady’s mother to the Queen; but, perhaps, the most temperate account of the whole affair, is in a letter from Lady Flora’s uncle, Mr. Hamilton Fitzgerald, which was published in the Examiner of Sunday, 24th of March, and, afterwards, copied into all the daily papers.

“Sir, – Many false and contradictory reports of the deplorable insult which has been lately offered to my niece, Lady Flora Hastings, at Buckingham Palace, having appeared in the public papers, I, as her ladyship’s nearest connection, feel it my duty to request of you to publish the following account of the transaction, for the correctness of which I vouch.

“Lady Flora arrived, some weeks since, from Scotland, very unwell. She immediately consulted Sir James Clark, the physician to both Her Majesty and the Duchess of Kent. One symptom of her complaint was a swelling of the stomach. By dint of exercise and medical treatment, she was getting better; the swelling had considerably subsided, and she had every hope of a speedy recovery; when, on or about the 1st of March, Sir James Clark went to her room, and announced to her the conviction of the ladies of the Palace that she was pregnant. In answer to all his exhortations to confession, ‘as the only means of saving her character,’ Lady Flora returned an indignant, but steady denial that there was anything to confess. Upon which, Sir James Clark told her, ‘that nothing but her submitting to a medical examination would ever satisfy them, or remove the stigma from her name.’ Lady Flora found that the subject had been brought before the Queen’s notice, and that all this had been discussed, arranged and denounced to her, without one word having been said on the subject to her own mistress, the Duchess of Kent; who had no suspicion of what was going on, and whose sanction was not sought for the humiliating proposition which had been made to Lady Flora. On leaving Lady Flora’s room, Sir James Clark went to the Duchess of Kent, and announced his conviction that Lady Flora was with child; and was followed by Lady Portman, who conveyed a message from Her Majesty to her mother, that the Queen would not permit Lady Flora to appear till the examination had taken place. Lady Portman (who, with Lady Tavistock, are mentioned as most active against Lady Flora) expressed to the Duchess of Kent, her conviction of Lady Flora’s guilt.

“‘Her beloved mistress’ never, for a moment, doubted Lady Flora’s innocence. She said that she knew her, her principles, and her family too well to listen to such a charge. However, the edict was given; and, the next day, Lady Flora having obtained the Duchess of Kent’s very reluctant consent – ‘for Her Royal Highness could not bear the idea of her being exposed to such a humiliation’ – but, Lady Flora, ‘feeling it her duty to Her Royal Highness, to herself, and to her family, that a point blank refutation should be instantly given to the lie,’ submitted herself to the most rigid examination; and now possesses a certificate, signed by Sir James Clark, and also by Sir Charles Clark, stating, as strongly as language can state it, that there are no grounds for believing that pregnancy does exist, or ever has existed. Lord Hastings, though, at the time very ill from influenza, went to London immediately, and demanded, and obtained, from Lord Melbourne, a distinct disavowal of his participation in the affair; and demanded, and obtained, an audience of Her Majesty, in which, while he disclaimed all idea that the Queen had any wish to injure his sister, he plainly, though respectfully, stated his opinion of those who had counselled her, and his resolution to find out the originator of the slander, and bring him, or her, to punishment. 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.’

“The Duchess of Kent’s conduct was perfect; ‘a mother could not have been kinder.’ ‘She immediately dismissed Sir James Clark from her service, and refused to see Lady Portman’; and has crowned her goodness by a most beautiful letter she has written to the Dowager Lady Hastings, from whom the accounts were kept, till all hope of avoiding publicity was impossible.”

Her brother, the Marquis of Hastings, was indefatigable in trying to unearth the promoters of the scandal, but, from the published letters, without much result; but the unfortunate affair involved the whole Court, for a time, in unpopularity – Lady Loudon, her mother, demanded from the Queen, Sir James Clark’s dismissal, but was not successful. Meantime, the object of all this agitation, after resuming, for a time, the duties of her situation, grew gradually worse, and, at length, expired, on the 5th July, at the age of 33. By the desire of Lord Hastings, a post mortem examination of the body took place, the particulars of which, attested by five of the most eminent surgeons of the metropolis, were published in the papers, and fully established the unfortunate lady’s complete innocence of the charge brought against her, the cause of death being clearly shown to be enlargement of the liver.

Lady Flora’s remains were removed from the palace, at an early hour in the morning, to be conveyed, by steamboat, to Scotland. Even as early as two o’clock, a considerable number of spectators were assembled, which increased in every street through which the procession passed. Four Royal carriages, including those of the Queen and the Queen Dowager, and many belonging to the nobility, accompanied the hearse. Lady Flora’s body was interred, on the 15th of July, in the family vault at Loudon, Ayrshire.

There were many books and pamphlets published with regard to this affair, among which were her mother’s letters to the Queen: “The Lady Flora Hastings, a Brief Sketch” – “A Warning to the Baroness Lehzen, 6 etc.” – “The Palace Martyr, a Satire” – “The Dangers of Evil Council, etc.” – “A Dirge on the Death of Lady Flora Hastings” – “The late Lady Flora Hastings: Statements of the Marquis of Hastings, etc.” – “The Victim of Scandal.”

At the time of which I write, climbing boys were still employed to sweep chimneys, and as a sample of the manner in which they were treated by their masters, I give the following police case. 25 Jan.:

Marlborough Street. – Henry Riddle, foreman to Robert Towser, a chimney sweep, appeared before the magistrates on a summons charging him under the 4 & 5 Wil. IV., c. 35, with the following act of cruelty towards James Arnold, a boy about 12 years of age, and who, for some time past, had been in Towser’s employ.

Mr. Rice, a baker, of 31, Up. Seymour St., Portman Sq., deposed that, on the afternoon of the 18th instant, his kitchen chimney, by some accident, caught fire; and, in consequence of information thereof being communicated to the defendant Riddle, he, soon afterwards, came to the house, bringing with him the boy Arnold, whom he, at once, desired to ascend, notwithstanding that the lighted soot was, at the time, coming down into the grate in large flakes.

Mr. Rawlinson: Did you remonstrate with Riddle upon the inhumanity of his conduct?

Complainant: I did, and begged of him not to send the boy up, as he would, inevitably, be suffocated; to which he replied, “Oh, d-n it, I’ve many a time been up a chimney ten times worse than that, myself, and why can’t he do it?” At this period, I had occasion to go upstairs, and made my way on to the roof, just as a friend of mine was about to pour down a quantity of water, when I begged of him not to do so, as I fancied I heard the voice of someone within a short distance of the top of the chimney; we both listened, and heard someone faintly say, “For God’s sake, take the chimney pot off, or I shall be suffocated.” With some difficulty we tore away the mortar, and, having removed the pot, we beheld the poor boy Arnold, who kept crying out, “Oh! pull me up, pull me up!” My friend then thrust down his arm, and, laying hold of the little sufferer, succeeded in extricating him from his perilous situation.

Mr. Rawlinson: Was the chimney, at the time, still on fire?

Complainant: It was, Sir.

Mr. Rawlinson: In what condition did the boy seem when lifted out of the chimney?

Complainant: He seemed almost in a lifeless state, and when carrying him in my arms downstairs, I was fearful he would not recover. After the lapse of a little time, I gave him a small quantity of brandy, and he, in a great measure, revived; Riddle then took hold of him, and leading him to the roof of the house, insisted upon his descending from the top to the bottom of the chimney, which he did, and he and Riddle then left the place.

Mr. Rawlinson (to Riddle): What answer have you to make for ill-treating this poor boy in so shameful a manner?

Riddle: The boy is not an apprentice, and he was not sent up the chimney until a quantity of water had been thrown down.

Mr. Rawlinson, after remarking upon the atrocious nature of the offence, ordered Riddle to find bail to answer the charge at the Sessions; at the same time expressing a hope that a severe example would be made of him.

From 1838 to 1841, there was exhibiting in London a famous lion tamer named Van Amburgh, and, in January, 1839, the Queen went to Drury Lane Theatre to witness his performance, with which she was so pleased, that she commissioned Sir Edwin Landseer to paint a picture of Van Amburgh and his lions, which was exhibited in 1839, and is now in the Royal Collection at Osborne. If I am not very much mistaken there is another, by the same artist, of the same subject, in the Duke of Wellington’s town mansion, at Apsley House.

We can see how long it takes to carry out well-known and wanted improvements – take the Thames Embankment for example. Originally suggested by Wren after the great fire of London in 1666, and afterwards by William Paterson, the founder of the Bank of England, about 1694, the matter slumbered until 1767, when the Corporation of the City of London embanked one mile of the river. The question arose spasmodically until 1838, when the Corporation consulted with the Government as to the advisability of embanking the Thames all the way between London and Vauxhall Bridges, and, in Jan., 1839, the Government sanctioned surveys being made and estimates prepared; the whole correspondence concerning which may be found in the Times of 2 Feb., 1839. But no practical steps were taken in the matter until 1860, when the Metropolitan Board of Works memorialised the House of Commons, and a Committee was appointed which sat for the first time on 30 Ap., 1861. An Act for carrying out the scheme was passed on 7 Aug., 1862, and the work was commenced in Nov. of the same year. The northern (Victoria) embankment, which terminated at Whitehall Stairs, was opened (as far as the footway went) to the public on 30 July, 1868.

Victoria Park took a shorter time to mature. The first mention of it, that I can find, is in the Times of March, 1839: “The inhabitants of St. Mary, Whitechapel, are bestirring themselves to obtain the formation of a Royal Park in their neighbourhood, and the Vestry of the parish are about to bring the matter before the public.” And they did so with such good effect that an Act was passed on 21 June, 1841 (4 & 5 Vic., c. 27), “To enable Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Works to complete the Contract for the Sale of York House, and to purchase certain lands for a Royal Park.” York House was sold to the Duke of Sutherland, and with the whole, or part, of the purchase money, the Commissioners were to purchase certain lands or hereditaments containing about 290 acres, which “shall for ever, thereafter, be taken and be a Royal Park, by the name of ‘Victoria Park.’” The Park was completed, and opened to the public, in 1845.

On Monday, 25 March, occurred a most daring robbery of gold dust valued at £4,600, which, at the time, created a great sensation. It seems that two boxes of gold dust were brought to this country from Mexico, in the Sea Gull Packet, consigned to the Brazilian Mining Co., and were landed at Falmouth. They were, subsequently, transshipped on board the City of Limerick steamer, which arrived at Dublin on Sunday afternoon. The boxes were not landed at the wharf until Monday morning, and, at noon on that day, the stranger who obtained possession of them drove up to the wharf in a cab which he had hired in the city. The letter which he presented to the wharfinger for the delivery of the boxes was in the same handwriting as one which the wharfinger had received from Falmouth, and which bore the postmark of that place, in the morning. It gave particular directions respecting the boxes, and that they were only to be delivered to a gentleman who would call in the course of the day, and present a letter in the same handwriting for their delivery. The person who obtained the boxes accurately described their contents, the marks on them, and the time they were landed at Falmouth. The wharfinger, as might be expected, was completely put off his guard by the ingenuity and cunning of the thief, and delivered them over to him.

On 3 April, two Jews, Ellis and Lewis Caspar, father and son, were brought up at Lambeth Street Police Station for being concerned in the robbery; afterwards, two other prisoners, Emanuel Moses and his daughter, Alice Abrahams, were arrested, and all were committed for trial, the Caspars for stealing the gold, the other two for feloniously receiving the same, well knowing it to be stolen. They were tried at the Central Criminal Court on 24 June, the trial lasting eight days. The jury found them all guilty, but recommended Alice Abrahams to mercy, believing that she acted under the advice and influence of her father. Judgment was not pronounced on them until 3 Feb., 1840, when the three male prisoners were sentenced to fourteen years’ transportation, and the female to four months’ hard labour. The Jewish community tried all their influence to get these sentences modified, but the convicts sailed for Sydney in the following October. The expenses of the prosecutor in connection with the trial amounted to £2,900!

CHAPTER IX

Queen Elizabeth’s Statue – The Ladies of the Bedchamber – The Queen hissed at Ascot Races – Land at Melbourne – Sunday Trading – New way of paying Church Rates.

Times, 25 Ap. – “The workmen engaged some time since in taking down an old public house adjoining St. Dunstan’s Church, in Fleet St., discovered in one of the cellars the ancient stone statue of Queen Elizabeth, which formerly stood in the nave of the old church. The parochial authorities have resolved to place it on the east end of the church, fronting Fleet Street.” An unfortunate position, for many raw, unlettered Irishmen, or women, have mistaken it, owing to its environment, to be a statue of the Virgin Mary, and have devoutly crossed themselves, and said their “Aves.”

About this time occurred a political complication which afforded great scope for gossip, and which showed that it was about time that the Queen was freed from her female entourage, and had the protective advice of a husband. On the 7th May, Lord Melbourne, having been beaten, by a small majority, on the Bill concerning the Suspension of the Constitution in Jamaica, resigned, and Sir Robert Peel was commissioned by the Queen to form a new Ministry. He did so, but, for valid reasons, he required the resignation, as was, and is, usual, of the ladies of the household. In order that there shall be no bias on this divergence of opinion between the Sovereign and her Minister, I quote a portion of Sir Robert Peel’s speech in the House of Commons, on 13 May, taking it from the authorised version of Hansard. Sir Robert said that there was but one subject of disunion between himself and Her Majesty.

“The difficulty arose with respect to certain portions of that part of the establishment which is filled by the Ladies of the household. Sir, I think it infinitely better, on this point – the one on which the difficulty arose – I think it infinitely better, after mature consideration – that I should not enter – in the first instance, at least, nor unless invited by the noble Lord (John Russell) – into any statement whatever of impressions on my own mind with respect to what took place – but that I should refer exclusively to the letters which passed on the subject; because if I were to state, here, impressions of my own, I must detail verbal communications that passed, where two parties only were present; and myself one of the party, being alone in this House to offer explanations of what occurred. I approach, then, that point with respect to which the difficulty, on this occasion, arose; and, for the purpose of enabling the House to form a judgment with respect to the nature of that difficulty, I shall confine myself, altogether, to the written documents which passed on the occasion, in which are conveyed the impressions on the mind of Her Majesty, and the impressions on my own mind, with regard to the purport and effect of the communications which passed between Her Majesty and myself, in respect to certain appointments in the household, which are held by Ladies. Now, whatever blame may attach on account of imperfect explanations, I am content to bear it; whatever consequences may result from misconception, let them be visited on me; but, as to my intentions in regard to the Ladies of the household, I must not only state them, but I must prove them by most unequivocable testimony.

“On the Wednesday evening – that is, the day before I saw Her Majesty on this particular point – I had an opportunity of conferring with all those whom I proposed to submit to Her Majesty as Ministers. I saw them on Wednesday night, at my own house, about ten o’clock. I then stated to them – and there are four of them now present, who heard the communication, and can give their evidence upon it – I stated to them, and to the peers whom I have before named, the course which I meant to pursue with respect to the household, and had very little considered the matter (I am speaking of the female part of it); I, really, scarcely knew of whom it consisted. I took the ‘Red Book’ into my hand, and saw there the different appointments of the household. I said to those who were intended to be my future colleagues, that, with respect to all the subordinate appointments – meaning every appointment, without exception, below the rank of a Lady of the Bedchamber – I should propose to Her Majesty no change whatever with respect to those. With respect to the superior classes, I stated, that those Ladies who held offices of that class, and who were immediate relatives of our political opponents, would, I took it for granted, relieve us from any difficulty by, at once, relinquishing their offices. But, I stated, at the same time, that I did think it of great importance, as conveying an indication of Her Majesty’s entire support and confidence, that certain offices in the household, of the higher rank, if not voluntarily relinquished by the Ladies holding them, should be submitted to some change Even with respect to the higher offices, namely, the Ladies of the Bedchamber, I did state, however, that there were some instances, in which, from the absence of any strong party, or political, connection, I thought it would be wholly unnecessary to propose a change. My noble and Right Hon. friends will confirm what I assert. This passed on the evening of Wednesday; and I mention it only in complete proof of my intentions, being perfectly willing, as I have before observed, to have transferred, exclusively to me, whatever blame may be attached to the imperfect explanation of my views.

“I saw Her Majesty on Thursday, and verbal communications took place on this subject. As I stated before, into the nature of those communications I shall not now enter in the slightest degree. I shall merely read the two letters which passed; one conveying the impressions of Her Majesty, and the other my own. The letter which I had the honour of receiving from Her Majesty is dated May the 10th, 1839. I received it at an early hour on Friday morning, and it is as follows:

“‘Buckingham Palace. – May 10, 1839.

“‘The Queen, having considered the proposal made to her, yesterday, by Sir Robert Peel, to remove the Ladies of her Bedchamber, cannot consent to adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is repugnant to her feelings.’

“Immediately – that is, in two or three hours after having received the letter from Her Majesty, I addressed to Her Majesty a letter, of which this is a copy:

“‘Whitehall. – May 10, 1839.

“‘Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has had the honour of receiving your Majesty’s note of this morning.

“‘In respectfully submitting to your Majesty’s pleasure, and humbly returning into your Majesty’s hands the important trust which your Majesty had graciously pleased to commit to him, Sir Robert Peel trusts that your Majesty will permit him to state to your Majesty his impression with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of his attempt to form an Administration for the conduct of your Majesty’s service.

“‘In the interview with which your Majesty honoured Sir Robert Peel, yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your Majesty the names of those whom he proposed to recommend to your Majesty for the principal executive appointments, he mentioned to your Majesty his earnest wish, to be enabled, with your Majesty’s sanction, so to constitute your Majesty’s household, that your Majesty’s confidential servants might have the advantage of a public demonstration of your Majesty’s full support and confidence; and that, at the same time, as far as possible, consistently with that demonstration, each individual appointment in the household should be entirely acceptable to your Majesty’s personal feelings.

“‘On your Majesty’s expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold an office in the household, Sir Robert Peel requested your Majesty’s permission at once to offer to Lord Liverpool the office of Lord Steward, or any other which he might prefer.

“‘Sir Robert Peel then observed, that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to the chief appointments which are filled by the Ladies of your Majesty’s household; upon which your Majesty was pleased to remark, that you must reserve the whole of those appointments, and that it was your Majesty’s pleasure, that the whole should continue as at present, without any change.