Efforts of Peel, appointments and provocations to endure. - A hostile and enraged majority confronted him in the House of Commons, comprising every section of the "liberal party," and determined to give him no quarter. He was defeated on the election of the Speaker, where at least he had deemed himself secure; and again upon the address, when an amendment was voted condemning the recent dissolution as unnecessary; and,-not to mention minor discomfitures, he was at length defeated on a resolution, affirming that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland would be satisfactory, that did not provide for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church.2 These few weeks formed the most brilliant episode in Sir Robert Sir Robert Peel's distinguished parliamentary career. He combined the temper, tact, and courage of a great political leader, with oratory of a higher order than he had ever previously attained. He displayed all the great qualities by which Mr. Pitt had been distinguished, in face of an adverse majority, with a more conciliating temper, and a bearing less haughty. Under similar circumstances, perhaps, his success might have been equal. But Mr. Pitt had still a dissolution before him, supported by the vast influence of the Crown: Sir Robert Peel had already tried that venture, under every disadvantage, and no resource was left him, but an honourable retirement from a hopeless struggle. His resignation. He resigned, and Lord Melbourne's government, with some alterations, was reinstated. The stroke of his failure. gative had failed; and its failure offers an instructive Causes of 1 It lamented that the progress of "reforms should have been interrupted and endangered by the unnecessary dissolution of a Parliament earnestly intent upon the vigorous prosecution of measures, prero illustration of the effects of the Reform Act, in dimin- bourne's ministry. The second ministry of Lord Melbourne, though Lord Melrapidly sinking in the estimation of their own supporters, second -and especially of the extreme, or "radical" party,while their opponents were gaining strength and popularity in the country,-continued in office during the two remaining years of the king's reign, without recovering his favour. of her Ma Her Majesty, on her most auspicious accession to the Accession throne, finding them the ministers of the Crown, imme- jesty. diately honoured them with her entire confidence. The occasion was especially favourable for ministers to secure and perpetuate such confidence. The young queen, having no political experience, was without predilections; and the impressions first made upon her mind hold. Her house- were likely to be lasting. A royal household was immediately to be organised for her Majesty, comprising not merely the officers of state and ceremony; but, --what was more important to a queen, all the ladies of her court. The ministers appointed the former, as usual, from among their own parliamentary supporters; and extended the same principle of selection to the latter. Nearly all the ladies of the new court were related to the ministers themselves, or to their political adherents. The entire court thus became identified with the ministers of the day. If such an arrangement was calculated to ensure the confidence of the Crown, -and who could doubt that it was?-it necessarily involved the principle of replacing this household with another, on a change of ministry. This was foreseen at the time, and soon afterwards became a question of some constitutional difficulty. The "Bed chamber The favour of the ministers at court became a subject Question." of jealousy, and even of reproach, amongst their opponents; but the age had passed away, in which court favour alone could uphold a falling ministry against public opinion. They were weaker now, with the court on their side, than they had been during the late reign, with the influence of the king and his court opposed to them; and in May, 1839, were obliged to offer their resignation. Sir Robert Peel, being charged with the formation of a new administration, had to consider the peculiar position of the household. Since Lord Moira's memorable negotiations in 1812, there had been no difficulties regarding those offices in the household, which were included in ministerial changes; but the court of a queen, constituted like the present, raised a new and embarrassing question. To remove from the society of her Majesty, those ladies who were imme Hansard's Debates, 3rd Ser., xlvii. 985, et seq., and see supra, p. 105. diately about her person, appeared like an interference with her family circle, rather than with her household. Yet could ministers undertake the government, if the queen continued to be surrounded by the wives, sisters and near relatives of their political opponents? They decided that they could not; and Sir Robert Peel went to the palace to acquaint her Majesty that the ministerial changes would comprise the higher offices of her court occupied by ladies, including the ladies of her bedchamber. The queen met him by at once declaring that she could not admit any change of the ladies of her household. On appealing to Lord John Russell on this subject, her Majesty was assured that she was justified, by usage, in declining the change proposed; and afterwards, by the advice of Lord Melbourne and his colleagues, she addressed a letter to Sir Robert Peel, stating that she could not "consent to adopt a course which she conceived to be contrary to usage, and which was repugnant to her feelings." Sir Robert Peel, on the receipt of this letter, wrote to her Majesty to resign the trust he had undertaken stating that it was essential to the success of the commission with which he had been honoured "that he should have that public proof of her Majesty's entire support and confidence, which would be afforded by the permission to make some changes in that part of her Majesty's household, which her Majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change." By a minute of the cabinet, immediately after these events, the ministry of Lord Melbourne recorded their opinion" that for the purpose of giving to the administration that character of efficiency and stability, and those marks of constitutional support of the Crown, which are required to enable it to 1 Hansard's Debates, 3rd Series, xlvii. 985. VOL. I. K 2 Ibid., 986. Increased weakness of Lord act usefully to the public service, it is reasonable that the great offices of the court, and situations in the household held by members of Parliament, should be included in the political arrangements made on a change of the administration; but they are not of opinion that a similar principle should be applied, or extended, to the offices held by ladies in her Majesty's household.” 1 In the ministerial explanations which ensued, Sir Robert Peel pointed out forcibly the difficulties which any minister must be prepared to encounter, who should leave about her Majesty's person, the nearest relatives of his political opponents. It had not been his intention to suggest the removal of ladies,—even from the higher offices of the household,-who were free from strong party or political connexion; but those who were nearly related to the outgoing ministers, he had deemed it impossible to retain. The ministers, on the other hand, maintained that they were supported by precedents, in the advice which they had tendered to her Majesty. They referred to the examples of Lady Sunderland and Lady Rialton, who had remained in the bedchamber of Queen Anne, for a year and a half after the dismissal of their husbands from office; and to the uniform practice by which the ladies of the household of every queen consort had been retained, on changes of administration, notwithstanding their close relationship to men engaged in political life. The ministers also insisted much upon the respect due to the personal feelings of her Majesty, and to her natural repugnance to sacrifice her domestic society to political arrangements.2 The "Bedchamber Question" saved Lord Melbourne's government for a further term. Sir Robert Peel had ex 1 Hansard's Debates, 3rd Ser. xlvii. 1001. 2 Ibid., 979, 1008. |