related to the outgoing ministers, he had deemed it impossible to retain. 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. 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.1 weakness Mel ment. The "Bedchamber Question" saved Lord Melbourne's Increased government for a further term. Sir Robert Peel had ex- of Lord perienced the evil consequences of the late king's pre-bourne's mature recall of his party to office; and his prospects in governthe country were not even yet assured. The immediate result of the bedchamber question was, therefore, not less satisfactory to himself than to ministers. The latter' gained no moral strength, by owing their continuance in office to such a cause; while the former was prepared to profit by their increasing weakness. The queen's confidence in her ministers was undiminished; yet they continued to lose ground in Parliament, and in the country. In 1841, the opposition, being fully assured of their growing strength, obtained, by a majority of one, a resolution of the Commons, affirming that ministers had not the confidence of the House; and "that their continuance in office, under such circumstances, was at variance with the spirit of the constitution." 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xlvii. 979, 1008. Sir Robert second ad tion, 1841. hold. The country was immediately appealed to upon this issue; and it soon became clear that the country was also adverse to the ministers. Delay had been fatal to them, while it had assured the triumph of their opponents. At the meeting of the new Parliament, amendments to the address were agreed to in both Houses, by large majorities, repeating the verdict of the late House of Commons.1 Sir Robert Peel was now called upon, at a time of his own choosing, to form a government. Supported ministra by Parliament and the country, he had nothing to fear from court influence, even if there had been any disposition to use it against him. No difficulties were again The house- raised on the bedchamber question. Her Majesty was now sensible that the position she had once been advised to assert, was constitutionally untenable. The principle which Sir Robert Peel applied to the household, has since been admitted, on all sides, to be constitutional. The offices of mistress of the robes and ladies of the bedchamber, when held by ladies connected with the outgoing ministers, have been considered as included in the ministerial arrangements. But ladies of the bedchamber belonging to families whose political connexion has been less pronounced, have been suffered to remain in the household, without objection, on a change of ministry. Relations of a secretary of crown. In 1851, an incident occurred which illustrates the relations of ministers to the crown,-the discretion vested in state to the them, and the circumstances under which the pleasure of the sovereign is to be signified, concerning acts of the executive government. To all important acts, by which the crown becomes committed, it had been generally acknowledged that the sanction of the sovereign must be 1 In the Lords by a majority of 72, and in the Commons by a majority of 91. RELATIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE CROWN. 135 memoran previously signified. And in 1850, her Majesty communicated to Lord Palmerston, the secretary of state for foreign affairs,-through Lord John Russell, her first minister,—a memorandum, giving specific directions as to the transaction of business between the crown and the secretary of state. It was in these words: "The queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will The distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in queen's order that the queen may know as distinctly to what dum, 1850. she is giving her royal sanction. Secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the crown, and justly to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing that minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreign ministers, before important decisions are taken, based upon that intercourse: to receive the foreign despatches in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval, sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents, before they must be sent off." 1 Such being the relations of the foreign secretary to the crown, the sovereign is advised upon questions of foreign policy by her first minister, to whom copies of despatches and other information are also communicated, in order to enable him to give such advice effectually. In controlling one minister, the sovereign yet acts upon the counsels and responsibility of another. Immediately after the coup d'état of the 2nd Decem- Lord Palber, 1851, in Paris, the cabinet determined that the merston's government of this country should abstain from any from off 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxix. 90. 2 Sir Robert Peel's evidence before Select Committee on Official Salaries. Statement by Lord J. removal office interference in the internal affairs of France; and a despatch to that effect, approved by the queen, was addressed to Lord Normanby, the British ambassador in Paris. But before this official communication was written, it appeared that M. Walewski, the French ambassador at the Court of St. James's, had assured his own government, that Lord Palmerston had "expressed to him his entire approbation of the act of the president, and his conviction that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done." This statement having been communicated to Lord Normanby by M. Turgot, was reported by him to Lord Palmerston. On receiving a copy of Lord Normanby's letter, Lord John Russell immediately wrote to Lord Palmerston requiring explanations of the variance between his verbal communications with the French ambassador, and the despatch agreed upon by the cabinet; and a few days afterwards her Majesty also demanded similar explanations. These were delayed for several days; and in the meantime, in reply to another letter from Lord Normanby, Lord Palmerston, on the 16th of December, wrote to his lordship, explaining his own views in favour of the policy of the recent coup d'état. On receiving a copy of this correspondence, Lord John Russell conceived that the secretary of state was not justified in expressing such opinions, without the sanction of the crown and the concurrence of the cabinet,―more particularly as these opinions were opposed to the policy of non-intervention upon which the cabinet had determined, and inconsistent with that moral support and sympathy, which England had generally offered to constitutional government in foreign countries. The explanations which ensued were not deemed satisfactory; and Lord Palmerston was accordingly removed from office, on the ground that he had exceeded his authority as secretary of state, and had taken upon himself alone, to be the organ of the queen's government.1 In defence of his own conduct, Lord Palmerston, while fully recognising the principles upon which a secretary of state is required to act in relation to the crown and his own colleagues, explained that his conversation with Count Walewski on the 3rd of December, and his explanatory letter to Lord Normanby on the 16th, were not inconsistent with the policy of nonintervention upon which the cabinet had resolved: that whatever opinions he might have expressed, were merely his own; and that he had given no official instructions or assurances on the part of the government, except in the despatch of the 5th of December, which her Majesty and the cabinet had approved. Though the premier and the secretary of state had differed as to the propriety of the particular acts of the latter, they were agreed upon the general principles which regulate the relations of ministers to the crown. These events exemplify the effective control which the crown constitutionally exercises in the government of the country. The policy and conduct of its ministers are subject to its active supervision. In minor affairs. the ministers have a separate discretion, in their several departments: but in the general acts of the government, the crown is to be consulted, and has a control over them all. fluence of From this time no question has arisen concerning Wise use the exercise of the prerogatives or influence of the of the incrown, which calls for notice. Both have been exer- the crown, in the precised wisely, justly, and in the true spirit of the consti- sent reign. tution. Ministers, enjoying the confidence of Parliament, have never claimed in vain the confidence of the 1 Explanations of Lord J. Russell, Feb. 3, 1852. |