[14] In this respect his political views were far in advance of those of his English tutors. Greville records a conversation he had in 1849 with Lord Aberdeen about the Prince’s politics. “Aberdeen spoke much of the Queen and Prince, of course with great praise. He says the Prince’s views were generally sound and wise, _with one exception, which was his violent and incorrigible German Unionism_” (Greville, vol. vi. p. 305). [15] Kidd’s Social Evolution, chap. x.; Marshall’s Principles of Economics, vol. i. pp. 34, 35. [16] In Lady Bloomfield’s Reminiscences, she records a conversation she had with the Prince shortly before his death. “He said his great object through life had been to learn as much as possible, not with a view of doing much himself,--as, he observed, any branch of study or art required a lifetime,--but simply for the sake of appreciating the works of others; for, he added, without any self-consciousness or vanity, ‘No one knows the difficulties of a thing till they have tried to do it themselves; and it was with this idea that I learnt oil-painting, water-color, etching, fresco-painting, chalks, and lithography, and in music I studied the organ, pianoforte, and violin, thorough-bass, and singing’” (vol. ii. p. 110). CHAPTER VII. THE QUEEN AND PEEL. From the time of the Queen’s accession, the power of the Whig Government under Lord Melbourne had been steadily going down. It sank to zero when they resumed office, in 1839, after Peel had failed to form a Government in consequence of the dispute over the Ladies of the Bedchamber. They had been beaten in the Commons and were in a permanent minority in the Lords; and it was said with justice that they were holding on, in office but not in power, simply to please the Queen. It would have been a discreditable position for any Government, but it was particularly damaging to a Whig Government from the fact that their party was specially identified with the principle of ministerial responsibility and a resistance to personal government. The result of their position was that they were powerless to pass their measures. They knew they had lost the confidence of the country, and that the House of Lords could therefore veto the Government Bills with a light heart. Perhaps this was not altogether painful to Lord Melbourne. The saying by which he is chiefly remembered by the present generation, “Why can’t you let it alone?” is not indicative of the ardent spirit of the reformer. He may have found consolation in the assistance given by the House of Lords to letting things alone.