QUEEN VICTORIA AND MR. GLADSTONE
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your correspondent, Mr. C. R. V. Coutts, has tO3 high an opinion of Mr. Gladstone to believe that he was capable of sending a Home Rule Bill to the Upper House without getting the Queen's promise to create peers enough to pass it, or of approaching his Sovereign to create peers after the Bill had left the Commons and was in danger. But it is evident that Mr. Gladstone must have taken one of these courses. Just what passed between Queen and Minister 44 years ago might be difficult to prove today, for, unlike Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone was superbly loyal to an exacting and querulous mistress and left behind him no spicy anecdotes of her amazing behaviours. No one doubts that H.M. thwarted and counter- mined Her greatest Servant on occasion.
I well remember hearing, or reading, that a list of sufficient names suggested for peerages had been submitted, which apart from eldest sons of Liberal peers and heirs expectant contained men of large landed estates and others of great wealth, high position and character. Yet not one of . them all was so fortunate as to gain H.M.'s approval. I do not imagine this document is now in.existence. I cannot now recall where, or when, I heard this particular rebuff to. Mr. Gladstone alluded to, in whose. journals, or memoirs, not in the Press, I think. I haye never heard doubt thrown on the story, which is credible and consistent with the characters of both .parties
and their relations at the time, his propensity towards effective and timely action, hers to delay and denial. I apprehend that your correspondent admits that a Home Rule Bill was eventually passed by the peers under ConserYative auspices. HoW this proves Lord Balfour's consistency and foresight is another question. Few statesmen broadened and mello.ved in later life more than did Lord Balfour.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
