Queen Elizabeth’s Statue—The Ladies of the Bedchamber—The Queen hissed at Ascot Races—Land at Melbourne—Sunday Trading—New way of paying Church Rates.

Times, 25 Ap.—“The workmen engaged some time since in taking down an old public house adjoining St. Dunstan’s Church, in Fleet St., discovered in one of the cellars the ancient stone statue of Queen Elizabeth, which formerly stood in the nave of the old church. The parochial authorities have resolved to place it on the east end of the church, fronting Fleet Street.” An unfortunate position, for many raw, unlettered Irishmen, or women, have mistaken it, owing to its environment, to be a statue of the Virgin Mary, and have devoutly crossed themselves, and said their “Aves.”

About this time occurred a political complication which afforded great scope for gossip, and which showed that it was about time that the Queen was freed from her female entourage, and had the protective advice of a husband. On the 7th May, Lord Melbourne, having been beaten, by a small majority, on the Bill concerning the Suspension of the Constitution in Jamaica, resigned, and Sir Robert Peel was commissioned by the Queen to form a new Ministry. He did so, but, for valid reasons, he required the resignation, as was, and is, usual, of the ladies of the household. In order that there shall be no bias on this divergence of opinion between the Sovereign and her Minister, I quote a portion of Sir Robert Peel’s speech in the House of Commons, on 13 May, taking it from the authorised version of Hansard. Sir Robert said that there was but one subject of disunion between himself and Her Majesty.

“The difficulty arose with respect to certain portions of that part of the establishment which is filled by the Ladies of the household. Sir, I think it infinitely better, on this point—the one on which the difficulty arose—I think it infinitely better, after mature consideration—that I should not enter—in the first instance, at least, nor unless invited by the noble Lord (John Russell)—into any statement whatever of impressions on my own mind with respect to what took place—but that I should refer exclusively to the letters which passed on the subject; because if I were to state, here, impressions of my own, I must detail verbal communications that passed, where two parties only were present; and myself one of the party, being alone in this House to offer explanations of what occurred. I approach, then, that point with respect to which the difficulty, on this occasion, arose; and, for the purpose of enabling the House to form a judgment with respect to the nature of that difficulty, I shall confine myself, altogether, to the written documents which passed on the occasion, in which are conveyed the impressions on the mind of Her Majesty, and the impressions on my own mind, with regard to the purport and effect of the communications which passed between Her Majesty and myself, in respect to certain appointments in the household, which are held by Ladies. Now, whatever blame may attach on account of imperfect explanations, I am content to bear it; whatever consequences may result from misconception, let them be visited on me; but, as to my intentions in regard to the Ladies of the household, I must not only state them, but I must prove them by most unequivocable testimony.

“On the Wednesday evening—that is, the day before I saw Her Majesty on this particular point—I had an opportunity of conferring with all those whom I proposed to submit to Her Majesty as Ministers. I saw them on Wednesday night, at my own house, about ten o’clock. I then stated to them—and there are four of them now present, who heard the communication, and can give their evidence upon it—I stated to them, and to the peers whom I have before named, the course which I meant to pursue with respect to the household, and had very little considered the matter (I am speaking of the female part of it); I, really, scarcely knew of whom it consisted. I took the ‘Red Book’ into my hand, and saw there the different appointments of the household. I said to those who were intended to be my future colleagues, that, with respect to all the subordinate appointments—meaning every appointment, without exception, below the rank of a Lady of the Bedchamber—I should propose to Her Majesty no change whatever with respect to those. With respect to the superior classes, I stated, that those Ladies who held offices of that class, and who were immediate relatives of our political opponents, would, I took it for granted, relieve us from any difficulty by, at once, relinquishing their offices. But, I stated, at the same time, that I did think it of great importance, as conveying an indication of Her Majesty’s entire support and confidence, that certain offices in the household, of the higher rank, if not voluntarily relinquished by the Ladies holding them, should be submitted to some change Even with respect to the higher offices, namely, the Ladies of the Bedchamber, I did state, however, that there were some instances, in which, from the absence of any strong party, or political, connection, I thought it would be wholly unnecessary to propose a change. My noble and Right Hon. friends will confirm what I assert. This passed on the evening of Wednesday; and I mention it only in complete proof of my intentions, being perfectly willing, as I have before observed, to have transferred, exclusively to me, whatever blame may be attached to the imperfect explanation of my views.

“I saw Her Majesty on Thursday, and verbal communications took place on this subject. As I stated before, into the nature of those communications I shall not now enter in the slightest degree. I shall merely read the two letters which passed; one conveying the impressions of Her Majesty, and the other my own. The letter which I had the honour of receiving from Her Majesty is dated May the 10th, 1839. I received it at an early hour on Friday morning, and it is as follows:

“‘Buckingham Palace.—May 10, 1839.

“‘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, and which is repugnant to her feelings.’

“Immediately—that is, in two or three hours after having received the letter from Her Majesty, I addressed to Her Majesty a letter, of which this is a copy:

“‘Whitehall.—May 10, 1839.

“‘Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has had the honour of receiving your Majesty’s note of this morning.

“‘In respectfully submitting to your Majesty’s pleasure, and humbly returning into your Majesty’s hands the important trust which your Majesty had graciously pleased to commit to him, Sir Robert Peel trusts that your Majesty will permit him to state to your Majesty his impression with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of his attempt to form an Administration for the conduct of your Majesty’s service.

“‘In the interview with which your Majesty honoured Sir Robert Peel, yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your Majesty the names of those whom he proposed to recommend to your Majesty for the principal executive appointments, he mentioned to your Majesty his earnest wish, to be enabled, with your Majesty’s sanction, so to constitute your Majesty’s household, that your Majesty’s confidential servants might have the advantage of a public demonstration of your Majesty’s full support and confidence; and that, at the same time, as far as possible, consistently with that demonstration, each individual appointment in the household should be entirely acceptable to your Majesty’s personal feelings.

“‘On your Majesty’s expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold an office in the household, Sir Robert Peel requested your Majesty’s permission at once to offer to Lord Liverpool the office of Lord Steward, or any other which he might prefer.

“‘Sir Robert Peel then observed, that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to the chief appointments which are filled by the Ladies of your Majesty’s household; upon which your Majesty was pleased to remark, that you must reserve the whole of those appointments, and that it was your Majesty’s pleasure, that the whole should continue as at present, without any change.

“The Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which your Majesty subsequently admitted him, understood, also, that this was your Majesty’s determination, and concurred with Sir Robert Peel in opinion that, considering the great difficulties of the present crisis, and the expediency of making every effort, in the first instance, to conduct the public business of the country with the aid of the present Parliament, it was essential to the success of the commission with which your Majesty had honoured Sir Robert Peel, that he should have that public proof of your Majesty’s entire support and confidence, which would be afforded by the permission to make some changes in that part of your Majesty’s household, which your Majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change.

“Having had the opportunity, through your Majesty’s gracious consideration, of reflecting upon this point, he humbly submits to your Majesty that he is reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public duty, and in interest of your Majesty’s service, to adhere to the opinion which he ventured to express to your Majesty.”

In a later portion of his speech, Sir Robert remarks:

“I, upon that very question of Ireland, should have begun in a minority of upwards of twenty members. A majority of twenty-two had decided in favour of the policy of the Irish Government. The chief members of the Irish Government, whose policy was so approved of, were the Marquis of Normanby and Lord Morpeth. By whom are the two chief offices in the household at this moment held? By the sister of Lord Morpeth, and the wife of Lord Normanby. Let me not, for a moment, be supposed to say a word not fraught with respect towards those two ladies, who cast a lustre on the society in which they move, less by their rank than their accomplishments and virtues; but still, they stand in the situation of the nearest relatives of the two Members of the Government, whose policy was approved by this House, and disapproved by me. Now, I ask any man in the House, whether it is possible that I could, with propriety and honour, undertake the conduct of an Administration, and the management of Irish affairs in this House, consenting previously, as an express preliminary stipulation, that the two ladies 1 have named, together with all others, should be retained in their appointments about the court and person of the Sovereign? Sir, the policy of these things depends not upon precedent—not upon what has been done in former times; it mainly depends upon a consideration of the present. The household has been allowed to assume a completely political character, and that on account of the nature of the appointments which have been made by Her Majesty’s present Government I do not complain of it—it may have been a wise policy to place in the chief offices of the household, ladies closely connected with the Members of the Administration; but, remember that this policy does seriously to the public embarrassment of their successors, if ladies, being the nearest relatives of the retired Ministers, are to continue in their offices about the person of the Sovereign.”

So Lord Melbourne, returned to power.

Child’s play. Chorus:—“Can’t get out!”—“Can’t get out.” 14 June, 1939

The genial Caricaturist John Doyle, as there were no illustrated comic papers in those days, illustrated this incident in his H. B. Sketches. No. 591 is “A Scene from the farce of The Invincibles, as lately performed in the Queen’s Theatre”—in which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel are being expelled at the point of the bayonet, by ladies clad as soldiers. Sir Robert says: “These Household Troops charge in a most disorderly manner, but they are too many for us.” While the Duke observes: “Our position is no longer tenable; draw off in good order, while I cover the retreat.” No. 592 is “The Balance of Power. The figure proposed to displace the old one of Justice at the top of Constitution Hill.” It shows a statue of the Queen, as Justice, holding a pair of scales, in which “Private Friendship,” typified by two ladies of the household, weighs down “Public Service” full of Ministers. I have here reproduced No. 597, “Child’s Play,” in which figure the Queen, the Duchess of Sutherland, the Marchioness of Normanby, and other ladies of the household. No. 599 is a “Curious instance of (Ministerial) ‘Resuscitation,’ effected by distinguished members of the Royal Humane Society.” Lord Melbourne is lying on a couch, attended by the Queen and ladies of the household. The Queen holds a smelling bottle to his nose, and says: “Ah, there’s a dear, now do revive.”

Whether it was owing to this affair, or not, I know not, but at Ascot races this year the Queen was absolutely hissed at by some one, or more persons—and the Times of 25 June quotes from the Morning Post thus:

“At the last Ascot races, we have reason to believe that the Duchess of Montrose and Lady Sarah Ingestre received an intimation that Her Majesty was impressed with the idea that they were among the persons who had hissed at a moment when no sounds but those of applause, gratulation and loyalty ought to have been heard. It was, we believe, further intimated to the noble ladies we have mentioned, that the Royal ear had been abused, to the effect already stated, by Lady Lichfield. The ladies, who had reason to think that they had been thus unjustly and ridiculously accused, applied immediately to their supposed accuser, who denied that she had made any such communication. On being urged to give this denial in writing, she declined to do so without first consulting her lord. But, on the application being renewed at a subsequent period, her ladyship, as we understand, explicitly, and in writing, denied that she had given utterance to the calumny in question. Here the matter stood, until, from some incidents connected with the late ball at Buckingham Palace, the two ladies, thus impeached, saw reason to believe that the erroneous impression communicated to Her Majesty at Ascot had not been entirely removed. It was an impression, however, which they could not permit to remain without employing every means of removing it; and, accordingly, the Duchess of Montrose went to Buckingham Palace, and requested an audience of Her Majesty. After waiting for a considerable period (two hours, as we have been informed), her Grace was informed by the Earl of Uxbridge, that she could not be admitted to an audience, as none but Peers and Peeresses in their own right could demand that privilege. Her Grace then insisted upon Lord Uxbridge taking down in writing what she had to say, and promising her that the communication should immediately be laid before Her Majesty. In this state, we believe, the matter remains, substantially, at the present moment, although it has taken a new form, the Duke of Montrose having, we understand, thought it necessary to open a correspondence upon the subject with Lord Melbourne.”

There was only a partial denial given to the above, which appeared in the Times of 5 July. “We are authorised to give the most positive denial to a report which has been inserted in most of the public papers, that the Countess of Lichfield informed the Queen that the Duchess of Montrose and Lady Sarah Ingestre hissed Her Majesty on the racecourse at Ascot. Lady Lichfield never insinuated, or countenanced any such report, and there could have been no foundation for so unjust an accusation.”

Melbourne, in Australia (named, of course, after the Premier), was founded 1 June, 1837, and I mention the fact to shew the prosperity of the infant city—for in two years’ time, on this its second anniversary, certain lots of land had advanced in price from £7 to £600, and from £27 to £930.

I cannot help chronicling an amusing story anent Sunday trading. For some time the parish authorities of Islington had been rigidly prosecuting shopkeepers for keeping open their shops on Sunday, for the sale of their goods, such not being “a work of necessity, or mercy,” and numerous convictions were recorded. Most of the persons convicted were poor, and with large families, who sold tobacco, fruit, cakes and sweets, in a very humble way of business, and considerable discontent and indignation was manifested in the parish in consequence of such prosecutions; the outcry was raised that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, and a party that strongly opposed the proceedings on the part of the parish, resolved to try the legality and justice of the question, by instituting proceedings against the vicar’s coachman, for “exercising his worldly calling on the Sabbath day,” by driving his reverend master to church, that not being a work of necessity, or mercy, as the reverend gentleman was able both to walk and preach on the same day. For this purpose a party proceeded to the neighbourhood of the vicar’s stables one Sunday, and watched the proceedings of the coachman, whom they saw harness his horses, put them to the carriage, go to the vicar’s house, take him up, and drive him to church, where he entered the pulpit, and preached his sermon. One day, the following week, they attended Hatton Garden Police Office and applied to Mr. Benett for a summons against the coachman. The magistrate, on hearing the nature of the application, told them it was a doubtful case, and the clerk suggested that if they laid their information the magistrate might receive it, and decide on the legal merits of the case. This was done, the summons was granted, and a day appointed for hearing the case.

This took place on June 14, when John Wells, coachman to the vicar of Islington, appeared to answer the complaint of Frederick Hill, a tobacconist, for exercising his worldly calling on the Sabbath day.

John Hanbury, grocer, of 3, Pulteney Street, being sworn, stated that, on Sunday, the 9th inst, about 1 o’clock, he saw the defendant, who is coachman to the vicar of Islington, drive his coach to the Church of St. Mary, Islington, where he took up the vicar and his lady, and drove them to their residence in Barnsbury Park.

Mr. Benett: Are you sure it was the vicar?

Witness: I heard him preach.

John Jones, of Felix Terrace, Islington, corroborated this evidence.

Mr. Benett said, that the Act of Parliament laid down that no tradesman, labourer, or other person shall exercise his worldly calling on the Lord’s day, it not being a work of necessity or charity. He would ask whether it was not a work of necessity for the vicar to proceed to church to preach. A dissenter might say it was not a work of necessity. The coachman was not an artificer who was paid by the hour or the day, but he was engaged by the year, or the quarter, and was not to be viewed in the light of a grocer, or tradesman, who opened his shop for the sale of his goods on the Sabbath day. After explaining the law upon the subject, he said that he was of opinion that the defendant driving the vicar to church on Sundays, to perform his religious duties, was an act of necessity, and did not come within the meaning of the law, and he dismissed the case.

The clergy did not seem to be much in favour with their flocks, for I read in the Annual Register, 1 Aug., of “A New Way of Paying Church Rates.—Mr. Osborne, a dissenter, of Tewkesbury, having declined to pay Church Rates, declaring that he could not conscientiously do so, a sergeant and two officers of the police went to his house for the purpose of levying under a distress warrant to the amount due from him. The officers were asked to sit down, which they did, and Mr. Osborne went into his garden, procured a hive of bees, and threw it into the middle of the chamber. The officers were, of course, obliged to retreat, but they secured enough of the property to pay the rate, and the costs of the levy, besides which, they obtained a warrant against Mr. Osborne, who would, most likely, pay dearly for his new and conscientious method of settling Church Rate accounts.”