§ Mr. Trevor
, seeing the noble Paymaster of the Forces in his place, begged to call his attention to a paragraph which had lately appeared in the public papers. In that paragraph it was stated, that a noble Earl, who had recently held a high situation in the Queen's household, had been dismissed from his office for the vote which he had given on a late occasion against the Reform Bill in the other House of Parliament. It had been understood that a situation in the Queen's household was held perfectly distinct from all party or political considerations. He believed there were instances in which noble Lords had held that office for a long time, and had always voted against the Administration of the day. It was also a fact, that the noble Earl had tendered his resignation of this office before he gave his vote against the Reform Bill. Why his resignation was not then accepted it was not for him (Mr. Trevor) to explain; but it certainly did appear extraordinary, that after the noble Earl had made a declaration of the mode in which he intended to vote, he should have been allowed to retain his office; and yet, that after he had 696 given his vote in the way which he had previously stated, he should be unceremoniously dismissed. He thought that the circumstances of this case required explanation, both as regarded the House and as regarded the country.
§ The hon. Member was sitting down, when
§ The Speaker
said, that the hon. Gentleman had gone into an argument, and it was not quite clear what question he intended to put.
§ Mr. Trevor
said, that as such was the case, he would confine himself to this simple question—was Earl Howe dismissed from his office of Chamberlain to the Queen on account of his vote against the Reform Bill?
Lord John Russell
said, that as far as he was informed—and the question did not fall within his department—it was not until after the noble Earl had given his vote against the Reform Bill that he had tendered his resignation, and then his resignation had been accepted.