« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Settlement of the Queen's Household. 235 • Stole, a first Lady of the Bedchamber, and ten other • ladies of the Bedchamber. The Queen thinks that • such an establishment of ladies would at present be * unnecessarily large, and she is disposed to think that
the establishment of Queen Consort would be sufficient • for her, viz., one Mistress of the Robes, and six Ladies
in Waiting. I told her what you desired me upon the part of Lady Lansdowne, and she was much grati"fied by it. If Lady Lansdowne thinks herself not
equal in point of health to be the Mistress of the • Robes, could she in the first instance take that of the 'first Lady in Waiting, with the understanding that
she should be allowed to spare herself; for instance, 6 some other lady might be got to take the waitings at • the first drawing rooms ?'
In a letter written the next day, Lord Melbourne says: 'I saw the Queen last night, and the arrange
ment which she seems to approve is, that if Lady • Lansdowne will take the situation of first Lady in Waiting, with the understanding that she is not to
give any formal attendance, she would then appoint a * Mistress of the Robes, a first Lady in Waiting, and
six other ladies for the ordinary duty. She is desirous • that the Duchess of Sutherland should be the Mistress
of the Robes if she will undertake it. Lady Tavistock • will be one of her ladies,–Lady Rosebery, I am sorry
to say, declines. If this arrangement will suit Lady · Lansdowne, I will write to the Duchess of Sutherland.'
It has been in some quarters suspected that the Queen's refusal to make the changes in her Household required by Sir Robert Peel proceeded from the advice of Lord Melbourne and the outgoing Cabinet, while the demand to make the change proceeded as much from
the Duke of Wellington as from Sir Robert Peel bimself, so that the whole affair was in essence a mere party conflict outside the walls of Parliament. But Mr. Torrens, in his · Life of Lord Melbourne,' calls attention to Lord Melbourne's speech in the House of Lords, in which he justified his conduct and repudiated most distinctly all share in advising Her Majesty as to ber treatment of Sir Robert Peel's demand. In the course of his speech Lord Melbourne said: “It is a bad thing to have
nothing to oppose to charges and imputations of this • kind, but one's own mere personal assertion. But when
I parted with Her Majesty on the morning of Wednesday last, I thought it my duty to tender such advice
as I gave her with respect to the persons to whom she 'ought to apply, and to the course which it was incum
bent on her to follow. I thought it, I say, my duty - to tender such advice to Her Majesty, considering the
novelty and difficulty in which she was placed. But · I most distinctly assure your Lordships,—not using 'any asseverations or protestations; for mere asse
verations and protestations might possibly produce on • the minds of your Lordships the same effect which
they would produce on mine, and might rather in• duce a doubt of the veracity of the party using them. • But I most distinctly assure you, that as to the ladies
of the household I gave Her Majesty no advice what• ever; for I fairly declare to you, my Lords, that I did • not expect, that I did not anticipate, I could not con
ceive that this proposition could be made. There are many reasons why this proposition should not be made to Her Majesty. They are so obvious that I need not particularise them.'!
Yemvirs of Lord Melbourne, vol. ii. pp. 303, 304.
Ministerial Changes in the Household. 237
Mr. Gladstone, in his lately republished criticism of Mr. Martin's first volume,' says that the record of the transaction given in ‘Hansard' rests mainly upon two letters, one from the Queen, and the other from Sir Robert Peel; and these two letters do not fully harmonise in their representation of the facts. The Queen in her letter mentions and refuses the proposal of Sir Robert Peel “to remove the ladies of her bedchainber. Sir Robert Peel, in his answer, speaks only of his desire to remove a portion of them. The Queen's letter is as follows: "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, 6 and which is repugnant to her feelings. Mr. Gladstone says that it is very difficult to understand why • Sir Robert Peel did not dispel, if only for his own
sake, the misapprehension under which the Queen's • letter may have been written. At present the docu'mentary evidence only shows that Her Majesty refused 'an unreasonable demand ; and that he retired from • his high position because he adhered to a demand
which, whether necessary or not, was not unreasonable. • If in truth the matter turned upon Her Majesty's re• sistance to this narrower request, it is quite possible
that it was an error on the one side to press the request 'to extremity, and on the other to refuse it. Had it
been upon the wider stipulation, all would surely bave • admitted that there was full warrant for the refusal.' The practice as now settled is, as Mr. Gladstone describes it, for the Mistress of the Robes, who is not periodically resident at the Court, but only an atten
Gleanings of Past Years, vol. i. p. 40.
dant on great occasions, to change with the Ministry; while the Ladies in Waiting, who, by virtue of their office, enjoy much more of personal contact with the Sovereign, are appointed and continue in their appointments without regard to the political connexions of their husbands.
5. The bistory of the late Prince Consort throws a good deal of light on certain constitutional questions which, in parallel circumstances, may again be mooted, and for the solution of which certain controversies which that history records will certainly be cited as precedents. The personal character and conduct of the Prince, and the details of the political conflicts by which the constitutional issues from time to time at stake were too often shrouded, are now sufficiently known to all by the help of Mr. Theodore Martin's elaborate biography. It is fortunately, however, quite possible to separate the accidental, personal, and political details from the matters which were and are of lasting constitutional interest.
Writing to the Queen on the 10th of December preceding his marriage in the February of 1840, the Prince discloses a clear apprehension of the purely non-party character which, constitutionally speaking, it behoved a Royal Consort to assume. With respect to the selection of members of his household, he writes: I should wish • particularly that the selection should be made without • regard to politics, for if I am really to keep myself • free from all parties, my people must not belong ex·clusively to one side. . . . It is very necessary they
should be chosen from both sides—the same number • of Whigs as of Tories.' ?
| See Guizot's Life of Sir Robert Peel, p. 81. ? Martin's Life of the Prince Consort, vol. i. p. 54.
Grant for the Prince Consort.
On the 27th of January following, both Houses of Parliament had questions before them relating to the topic of the approaching marriage. In the House of Commons, Lord Melbourne's Government had proposed that an annuity of 50,0001. should be granted to the Prince, according to the analogy supplied by the case of the marriage of Prince Leopold with the Princess Charlotte, and the perhaps less closely analogous cases of the marriage of Queen Caroline to George the Second, Queen Charlotte to George the Third, and Queen Adelaide to William the Fourth. It seems to have been anticipated that the proposal would pass unchallenged, and all debate be avoided. It happened, however, that Mr. Hume proposed to reduce the annuity to 21,0001., to which an amendment was carried by 262 to 158, on the motion of Colonel Sibthorpe, supported by Sir Robert Peel and several leaders of the Opposition, to reduce the annuity to 30,0001., at which sum it was consequently fixed. The matter is mainly of interest as marking the firm and deliberate control assumed by Parliament in a matter on which the feelings of the Sovereign might be supposed to be deeply engaged; and this relevancy of the event is not diminished by the undoubted fact that the division and controversy are mainly attributable to the accidental opposition of parties in the House at the time.
On the same evening, in the House of Lords, was brought forward the Bill for the naturalisation of the Prince, and it contained a clause giving to the Prince precedence for life next after Her Majesty, in Parliament or elsewhere, as Her Majesty might think proper. The Duke of Wellington took occasion of the omission of reference to this clause in the title of the Act, to move the adjournment of the discussion on the Bill, because