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. bourne's perienced the evil consequences of the late king's prema- Melture recall of his party to office; and his prospects in the governcountry were not even yet assured. The immediate ment. result of the Bedchamber Question was, therefore, not less satisfactory to himself than to the 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 the 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." 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 Peel's tion, 1841. Sir Robert Peel was now called upon, at a time of Sir Robert his own choosing, to form a government. Supported second adby Parliament and the country, he had nothing to fear ministra from court influence, even if there had been any disposition to use it against him. No difficulties were again raised on the Bedchamber Question. Her Majesty The housewas now sensible that the position she had once been advised to assert, was constitutionally untenable. The 1 In the Lords by a majority of 72, and in the Commons by a majority of 91. hold. Relations of a secretary of Crown. 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. -- 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 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 distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in dum, 1850. order that the queen may know as distinctly to what 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 The queen's memoran 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. merston's in 1851. Immediately after the coup d'état of the 2nd Decem- Lord Palber, 1851, in Paris, the cabinet determined that the Go- removal vernment of this country should abstain from any inter- from office ference 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 1 Hansard's Debates, 3rd Series, cxix. 90. 2 Sir Robert Peel's evidence before Select Committee on Official Salaries. Statement by Lord J. also demanded similar explanations. These were delayed for several days; and in the mean time, 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. 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 |