TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE QUEEN'S MEN.
THERE was a time when the use of the Sovereign's name to influ- ence votes in Parliament, or to shield a Government measure from attack, would have been denounced by the Whigs as uncon- stitutional in the highest degreee. In the reign of GEORGE the Third, the attempt was twice made to separate the King from his responsible advisers, and to form a distinct party called the " King's friends." A considerable portion of BURKE 'S pamphlet entitled " Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents," written under Whig inspiration, and often referred to as un- exceptionable Whig authority—for BURKE Was then connected with the ROCKINGHAMS and PORTLANDS—Was devoted to an ex- posure of the intrigue carried on in the Royal closet, with the view to render the King independent of Parliament. The success of the scheme, BURKE argued, would subvert the constitution. The King was again brought into the field by the Tories to de- feat Fox's Indiat-Bill ; and with more vehemence still was the un- constitutional use of the Royal name exclaimed against by the Whigs. Frequently. no doubt, in later times, has the personal influence of the Sovereign been employed to carry or defeat mea- sures ; and the most notorious instance in our time occurred under a 'Whig Administration. WILLIAM the Fourth personally interfered to carry the Reform Bill through the House of Lords. But the peculiar cheutnstances in which Earl GREY was placed, and the object of the Royal intaference, were received as apologies for what was intrinsically a most unjustifiable proceeding. No such defence can be :et up for dragging Queen VICTORIA before Ili e public, as personally responsible for the expenses of Lord DURHAM'S mission ; ti hich, be they prodigal or economical, have only been sanctioned by a majority of two in the House of Com- mons. Yet, to this indescribable meanness have the Whigs of our time descended. Their organ, the Morning Chronicle, re- plying on Thursday to the ridiculous Tory attacks on Lord DUR- HAM'S out fit, put the Queen forward as responsible for the whole of it.
"It was sufficiently known to the Tories, that this mission was by the Queen specially directed to be placed on the footing of the establishment of the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland ; and the arrangements have accordingly been made in conformity with the particular teishes of her Majesty. If, for instance, Lord Durham had consented to receive a salary, it must have been at the rate of that of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The 'Tories, knowing her Majesty's wishes and intentions, imagined that, without committing themselves, they could men, ify her Majesty by a covert attach on what had met with her special appro- bation."
This is plain enough. The Opposition are charged with a design to mortify the Queen. Members of the House of Com- mons are held up as objects of the Royal displeasure for their speeches and votes in Parliament. The propriety or the unfitness of the DURHAM Outfit is sunk ; it is to the Queen's name that the Whigs fly as to a "tower of strength." It is sufficient that the Queen authorizes the expenditure; the attempt of Representatives of the People to curtail or fix it, is a personal insult and injury to the Queen. And this is Whig doctrine in 18381 Their in- experienced and confiding Queen—a girl, scarcely released from the governess and the school-room—is to be the scapegoat of hoary statesmen, the fixtures of half-a-dozen Administrations. It is under the Royal robes that the gallant Lord MELBOURNE runs for shelter.
For which of their measures will Ministers please to consider themselves responsible ? For which must the Queen answer ? What Whig measure is it permitted to censure and oppose without incurring the reproach of a design to " mortify " the Queen? Is the nation to be divided into two factions—the Court and the Country party,•the "Queen's men" and her foes?
Previous page
