Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/313

 1841.] Accession of the Queen to fall of Melbourne. 299 their resignation. A week afterwards, on the 13th of May, Russell said that since he had last addressed the House Sir Robert Peel had tried to form an Administration and had failed, and that her Majesty had graciously permitted that gentleman to state the circumstances which had led to the failure. The explanation was contained in a description of what is known as the great bed-chamber question. The Whigs had surrounded the Queen by ladies connected with their own families. At first Peel had not noticed this fact, and did not propose any action with regard to it. He naturally supposed that at all events the relatives of the late Cabinet ministers would leave office when their husbands and brothers left. Beyond this line he never thought of going ; but to his surprise he found that the wife of Lord Normanby and the sister of Lord Morpeth both intended to retain their positions in the royal household. To this Peel objected, and when the Queen applied for advice to Lord Melbourne, he recommended that the request of Peel should be refused. There is no doubt now that Melbourne's advice was con- stitutionally wrong ; but it was accepted, and behind the petticoats of their ladies the Whigs sheltered themselves from the indifference of the Commons and the hostility of the Lords, and consented to continue in office. It need not be said that place accepted on such terms brought no honour and very little power. What the terms were was clearly manifested by the fate of the second Jamaica bill, which the Government substituted for the one which had led to their resignation. On the 3<Dth of May the new measure was brought in. The first clause empowered the governor in council, in case the Colonial Legislature should not, before the 1st of October afterwards extended to the 1 5th pass certain Acts, to make ordinances on the subject of contracts for labour, vagrancy, and the occupation of waste lands. This clause contained the very essence of the bill. It was carried in committee, on the loth of June, by a majority of thirty-four ; but on the I9th of June, on the motion for the passing of the bill, Goulburn moved its