nance to sacrifice her domestic society to political arrange. ments.1 Increased Lord Mel The "Bedchamber Question" saved Lord Melbourne's government for a further term. Sir Robert Peel weakness of had experienced the evil consequences of the late bourne's gov- king's premature recall of his party to office; and ernment. his prospects in the country were not even yet. assured. The immediate 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.2 Sir Robert administra tion, 1841. Sir Robert Peel was now called upon, at a time of his own choosing, to form a government. Supported Peel's second 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 raised on the Bedchamber Question. Her Majesty was now sensible that the position she The household. 1 Hansard's Debates, 3d Ser., xlvii. 979, 1008. 2 In the Lords by a majority of 72, and in the Commons by a majority of 91. 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 connection has been less pronounced, have been suffered to remain in the house hold, without objection, on a change of ministry. state to the In 1851, an incident occurred which illustrates the relations of ministers to the Crown, the discretion Relations of a vested in them; and the circumstances under secretary of which the pleasure of the sovereign is to be sig- Crown. nified, 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, memoranin 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 receive the foreign despatches in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval, sent to her in suffi The queen's dum, 1850. cient 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.2 In controlling ne minister, the sovereign yet acts upon the counsels and esponsibility of another. Lord Palmerston's removal from Immediately after the coup d'état of the 2d December, 1851, in Paris, the cabinet determined that the Government of this country should abstain from office in 1851. any 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. 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 mean time, in reply to another letter from Lord Normanby, Lord Palm erston, on the 16th of December, wrote to his lordship, ex plaining his own views in favor of the policy of the recent 1 Hansard's Debates, 3d Series, cxix. 90. On 2 Sir Robert Peel's evidence before Select Committee on Official Salaries. Statement by Lord J. Russell; Hansard's Debates, 3d Series; cxix. 91. 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 sanetion 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 sympa thy, 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 recognizing 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 3d of December, and his explanatory letter to Lord Normanby on the 16th, were not inconsistent with the policy of non-intervention 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 dif fered 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 1 Explanations of Lord J. Russell, Feb. 3, 1852. of the government, the Crown is to be consulted, and has a control over them all. Wise use of of the Crown, reign. From this time no question has arisen concerning the exercise of the prerogatives or influence of the the influence Crown, which calls for notice. Both have been in the present exercised wisely, justly, and in the true spirit of the constitution. Ministers, enjoying the confidence of Parliament, have never claimed in vain the confidence of the Crown. Their measures have not beer thwarted by secret influence, and irresponsible advice. Their policy has been directed by Parliament and public opinion, and not by the will of the sovereign, or the intrigues of the court. Vast as is the power of the Crown, it has been exercised, throughout the present reign, by the advice of responsible ministers, in a constitutional manner, and for legitimate objects. It has been held in trust, as it were, for the benefit of the people. Hence it has ceased to excite either the jealousy of rival parties, or popular discontents. This judicious exercise of the royal authority, while it has conduced to the good government of the state, has sustained the moral influence of the Crown; and the devoted loyalty of a free people, which her Majesty's personal virtues have merited, has never been disturbed by the voice of faction. General increase of the influence of the Crown. But while the influence of the Crown in the government of the country, has been gradually brought into subordination to Parliament and public opinion, the same causes, which, for more than a century and a half, contributed to its enlargement, have never ceased to add to its greatness. The national expenditure and public establishments have been increased to an extent which alarms financiers; armies and navies have been maintained, such as at no former period had been endured in time of peace. Our colonies have expanded into a vast and populous empire; and her Majesty, invested with the sovereignty of the East Indies, now rules over two hundred millions of Asiatic |