Opening of the Session — Lady Flora Hastings — Bulwer’s ‘Richelieu’ — Changes at the Colonial Office — Attack on Lord Normanby’s Irish Administration in the Lords — General Aspect of Affairs — The ‘Morning Chronicle’ — Death of Lord de Ros — Precarious Position of the Government — Views of Lord John Russell — A doubtful Question — Conciliatory Conversation with Sir James Graham — Attitude of the Whig Party — Peel’s cold Reception of the Proposal — Result of the Debate — Attitude of Lord John Russell — Language of the Radical Party — Conciliation — Change of Feeling in the Country — Duke of Newcastle dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy — Lord John Russell’s Letter — Jamaica Bill — Defeat of the Jamaica Bill — Resignation of Ministers — The Queen retains the Ladies of her Household — Conduct of the Whigs — End of the Crisis — The Truth of the Story.
London: February 24th, 1839
Hitherto the proceedings in Parliament have been sufficiently languid and uninteresting. The debate on the Corn Laws, which was expected to occupy two or three nights, went off in one, and a great majority against hearing evidence, followed by no sort of sensation, has set the question at rest for the present. Lord Winchilsea brought on the Turton case in the House of Lords, when Durham made a blustering, and Melbourne a prudent, moderate, and satisfactory explanation. He had remonstrated against the appointment, when Durham had replied that his honour was concerned in it and he could not cancel it; and Melbourne said, he did not think he should be justified in hazarding the great objects of Durham’s mission for such an object as Turton’s removal. Durham threatened, if anything more was said on the subject, to bring forward the cases of all those who had been guilty of a similar offence, and had afterwards held office. He did not say what he had to say well, for he might have exposed the cant of all this hubbub, and have asked Winchilsea, who CHANGES AT THE COLONIAL OFFICE. talked of sense of duty and so forth, and that he should have done the same by his dearest friend, whether he had thought it necessary to make a similar stir when Sir George Murray was appointed Secretary of State; and, besides this argumentum ad hominem, he might have asked, whether in point of fact it was an admitted principle that those who had committed heavy offences against the laws of morality should be therefore disqualified from serving in a civil capacity. However the question is at an end, and has gone off smoothly enough all things considered.[1]
[1] [Sir George Murray had run away with Lady Louisa Erskine, whom he afterwards married. But Turton’s breach of morality was of a more serious character. Mr., or as he afterwards became Sir Thomas, Turton had been guilty of an intrigue with his sister-in-law, which led to the dissolution of his marriage. On this ground Lord Melbourne had objected to his going out to Canada with Lord Durham in a public capacity; but Lord Durham, with very bad taste, took him out in what he was pleased to call a private capacity. The public, as this was a question of morals, were slow to accept this distinction.]
After much difficulty about filling up Sir George Grey’s place at the Colonies,[2] Labouchere has very handsomely volunteered to take it, though lower in rank and pay, and far more laborious than that which he before held. They did not venture to ask him, but it was thrown out by Le Marchant that he would be the most eligible successor to Grey; when he said immediately, that if Government thought he could be of use to them and to the public, and he was satisfied the measures to be proposed would be such as he could conscientiously support, he would take the office without hesitation. They took him at his word, and he was installed instanter; had he not taken it, Ben Stanley would have gone there. These changes have so much disconcerted Stephen that he has proposed to resign, and it is still a question whether he does or not; but they will hardly let him go, for his knowledge and powers of wielding the business cannot be dispensed with, particularly by two men perfectly new and inexperienced in Colonial affairs.
[2] [Sir George Grey, who had been Under Secretary for the Colonies, was made Judge Advocate and a Privy Councillor on the 1st of March, 1839. Mr. Labouchere, who had been Vice-President of the Board of Trade and Master of the Mint since 1835, very handsomely consented to take the inferior office at the Colonies. Mr. Labouchere, however, returned to the Board of Trade as President on the 29th of August, 1839. Mr. Stephen was the permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies.]
March 2nd, 1839
The whole town has been engrossed for some days with a scandalous story at Court, and although of course great exaggerations and falsehoods are grafted upon the real case, and it is not easy to ascertain what and how much is true, enough is known and indubitable, to show that it is a very discreditable transaction. It appears that Lady Flora Hastings, the Duchess of Kent’s lady, has been accused of being with child. It was at first whispered about, and at last swelled into a report, and finally into a charge. With whom it originated is not clear; but the Queen appears to have been apprised of the rumour, and so far to have entered into it as to sanction an intimation to the lady that she must not appear at Court till she could clear herself of the imputation. Medical examination was either demanded by her or submitted to, and the result was satisfactory to the virtue of the accused damsel. Then naturally exploded the just indignation of insulted honour. Her brother, Lord Hastings, came up to town, saw Melbourne, who is said to have endeavoured to smother the affair, and to have tried to persuade Lord Hastings to do so; but he was not at all so inclined, and if he had been, it was too late, as all the world had begun to talk of it, and he demanded and obtained an audience of the Queen. I abstain from noticing the various reports of what this or that person did or said, for the truth of which I could not vouch; but it is certain that the Court is plunged in shame and mortification at the exposure, that the palace is full of bickerings and heart-burnings, while the whole proceeding is looked upon by society at large as to the last degree disgusting and disgraceful. It is really an exemplification of the saying, that ‘les Rois et les Valets’ are made of the refuse clay of creation, for though such things sometimes happen in the servants’ hall, and housekeepers charge still-room and kitchen-maids with frailty, they are unprecedented and unheard of in good society, and among people in high or even in respectable stations. It is inconceivable BULWER’S ‘RICHELIEU’. how Melbourne can have permitted this disgraceful and mischievous scandal, which cannot fail to lower the character of the Court in the eyes of the world. There may be objections to Melbourne’s extraordinary domiciliation in the palace; but the compensation ought to be found in his good sense and experience preventing the possibility of such transactions and tracasseries as these.[3]
[3] [I insert this passage on a painful transaction which had better be consigned to oblivion, because it contains nothing which is not to be found in the most ordinary books of reference; but I shall not enter further on this matter.]