164 THE MINISTERIAL PROPOSITIONS AGREED TO. [1820. decency, and likely to disturb the peace of the country. They proposed, therefore, a Bill to make provision for the Queen by an annuity, payable only during her continued residence abroad. They thought that the King would be fully justified in withholding those distinctions which it was in the option of his Majesty to confer upon her, to be named in the Liturgy, and to be crowned. They add, "the intercourse which took place with Mr. Brougham last summer affords just reason for believing that the Princess would be advised to acquiesce in an arrangement founded upon these principles." On this Minute Mr. Canning made a memorandum. "As a part of the whole I agree to the proposed alteration in the Liturgy. could not have agreed to the omission of her name if any penal process, of whatever kind, had been in contemplation."* I On the 12th of February the King replied seriatim to the various objections to his wishes offered by the Cabinet. He altogether disapproved of the proposal of settling an annuity upon the Princess, payable only during her residence abroad. On the 14th of February the Cabinet re-stated to the King their unanimous opinion that, whatever other measure they might feel themselves justified in proposing, the originating a Bill of Divorce is that which they cannot recommend. On the 17th the King yielded, being "ready, for the sake of the public decorum and the public interest, to make, therefore, this great and this painful sacrifice of his personal feelings." He recited the terms of the proposed arrangement, "to avoid all future misconception;” and he added, "the King further understands that it is the intention of his servants to assert and justify the omission of the Princess's name from the Liturgy." Such was the prologue to the great "sensation" drama which was to be enacted four months afterwards. All political agitation appeared to have subsided. Mr. Hunt, and others concerned in the Manchester meeting, were tried at York on the 16th of March and nine following days, on the charge of unlawfully assembling for the purpose of moving and inciting to contempt and hatred of the Government. Henry Hunt, Joseph Johnson, John Knight, Joseph Healey, and Samuel Bamford, were found guilty, and being brought up for judgment in the Court of King's Bench, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. At the Leicester Assizes, on the 23rd of March, sir Francis Burdett was found guilty of a seditious libel. The verdict was impeached in the Court of King's Bench, and the various arguments upon the case had the effect of postponing the judgment till the beginning of 1821. The baronet was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of two thousand pounds. Amidst this political quiet, now and then a flying rumour about the Queen appeared in the newspapers. In the gossip of the higher circles there was no foreboding of a coming storm. "Brougham attends frequently at the Treasury upon the Queen's business," writes Sydney Smith on the 15th of April. Every one was thinking of the expected Coronation, in which it appears to be understood as a matter of course, that the Queen was not to appear. "The King sits all day long with Lady C―, sketching processions, and looking at jewels; in the meantime, she tells everywhere all that he tells to her." The placidity of the royal mind * The Minutes and the Memorandum are given in Mr. Stapleton's work, pp. 266 to 274. "Memoir of Sydney Smith," vol. ii. p. 195. 1820.] OPENING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT. 165 appears to have been somewhat disturbed in the midst of these pleasant occupations. On the 26th of April the Chancellor writes to his daughter, "Our Royal Master seems to have got into temper again, as far as I could judge from his conversation with me this morning. He has been pretty well disposed to part with us all, because we would not make additions to his revenue." * These minor troubles have a happy capacity for adjustment in a constitutional monarchy, when responsible Ministers possess the requisite degree of firmness. The King opened the session of the new parliament in person on the 27th of April, and had a brief popularity in declaring that he left entirely at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the hereditary revenues, and that so far from desiring any arrangement which might lead to the imposition of new burdens upon his people, or even diminish the amount of reduction incident to his accession, he had no wish that any addition whatever should be made to the settlement adopted by Parliament in 1816. Amidst this sunshine the little cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, was seen from afar. Some members of Opposition began again to call attention to the position of the Queen. Mr. Tierney, in a debate on the Civil List on the 8th of May, said that he never expected to be called upon to vote for a Bill to provide for the maintenance of the royal family and household, out of which the Queen of England herself was to be excluded, after being recognized by the lord high chancellor. His allusion was to this circumstance: In the Court of Chancery, on the 11th of April, Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman had presented their appointments as attorney-general and solicitor-general to the Queen, which appointments the lord chancellor immediately accepted, saying that "he would consult no views, and regard no considerations in the matter, except such as were purely professional." In the last days of May the preparations for the King's Coronation still formed the chief topic at court. The committee for settling the forms of that ceremony had reported to the King that, as there was to be no crowning of a Queen, peeresses should not be summoned to attend. His Majesty had a ready answer, that as "Queen Elizabeth, though a lady, had both peers and peeresses, so he, though he has no Queen, will have both ladies and gentlemen to attend him."+ While these discussions were proceeding within the palace, the people in public places were thinking very seriously of some other possible occurrence than a coronation so seriously, that they committed their opinions to the usual issue of a bet. Some, who thought the Queen would not come very speedily, paid fifty guineas to receive a guinea a day till she did come. This was the common entry in the gambler's book' on the 29th of May, on which day Eldon wrote, "I retain my old opinion that she will not come unless she is insane." On the 1st of June the Queen was at St. Omers, having rapidly travelled thither, accompanied by alderman Wood. She had previously despatched a courier with letters to London, demanding that a yacht should be sent to convey her to England, and that a palace should be provided for her reception. The Cabinet authorized lord Hutchinson immediately to proceed to St. Omers to make the proposal of an annuity according to the arrangement of February, but with conditions which appear to have been capable of a different construction from those which formed part of the *Twiss, "Life of Eldon," vol. ii. p. 362. ↑ Ibid., p. 366. 166 ARRIVAL OF THE QUEEN-THE GREEN BAG. [1820: proposition made in the "intercourse which took place with Mr. Brougham last summer." Her Majesty's attorney-general accompanied lord Hutchinson. The proposition, which it appears was made then for the first time in a letter addressed by lord Hutchinson to Mr. Brougham, and which, as her legal adviser, he read to the Queen, was rejected by her under his advice.* Her Majesty, with her civic councillor, hurried off to Calais, was quickly on board a packet, landed at Dover amidst the shouts of the populace, and entering. London on the evening of the 6th surrounded by huzzaing thousands, took up her abode at the house of alderman Wood in South Audley-street. On that same evening a message from the King was presented to both Houses, stating the arrival of the Queen, and announcing that his Majesty had thought it right to communicate certain papers respecting the conduct of her Majesty since she left this country. On the table of each House a green bag was laid which contained the papers, sealed up. In the House of Lords, after some discussion, it was agreed that the papers should be referred to a Secret Committee. In the House of Commons, previous to taking into consideration the King's Message, Mr. Brougham, as her Majesty's attorney-general, presented a communication from the Queen, in which she stated that she had returned to England in consequence of measures pursued against her honour and her peace by agents abroad. She protested against the formation of a Secret Committee to examine documents privately prepared by her adversaries. She complained of the omission of her name in the Liturgy, as calculated to prejudge her cause. Lord Castlereagh declared that the Secret Committee was only a preliminary step, to ascertain whether there was any case to proceed with. Mr. Brougham strongly resisted the appointment of the Committee, and commented in the most unqualified terms upon the proposition made to the Queen, which was nothing more nor less than to ask her to say, "Give me fifty thousand a year, and I will plead guilty." Mr. Canning, in vindicating the conduct of the Government, expressed his earnest desire, that this unhappy business should be terminated without any further public proceedings. In reply to Mr. Brougham's complaint of the terms offered to the Queen, he declared that they were the same terms which the Queen's legal adviser had previously considered reasonable. Mr. Brougham, in reply, complained that if Mr. Canning had not considered himself bound to secrecy, he, Mr. Brougham, felt himself, in some degree, under that obligation. He pledged himself to show that there was nothing inconsistent in his taking part in the negotiation of July, and in his present course. There was one circumstance in the date of the transaction referred to, which constituted an essential difference between the terms then suggested, and those proposed by lord Hutchinson. "The illustrious person was not then Queen, and it was a very different proposal that she should forbear to assume a title which might fall to her at some distant and contingent time, and that she should lay down what she had in course of law assumed. Widely different, too, was that proposal from the proposition of lord Hutchinson; the one calling on the Princess of Wales not to assume a particular title, which might afterwards descend to her, the other to renounce any title taken from the royal family of England." + * Hansard, vol. i. new series, col. 973. Ibid., vol. i. second series, col. 971. 1820.] CONFERENCES FOR AVERTING A PUBLIC PROCEEDING. 167 Mr. Brougham declared, on his honour, that her Majesty was not in the slightest degree implicated in the proceeding adverted to. "The right honourable gentleman might treat as he pleased the person who made those propositions, but her Majesty had no more knowledge, no more influence over those propositions, than the child unborn." The historical inquirer may ask, how was it that the Queen had "no more knowledge than the child unborn" of those propositions? We cannot doubt that when the time for a complete revelation shall arrive, there will be a juster solution of the question than the suspicions of Mr. Canning of an absence of "plain dealing;" less tinctured, possibly, by political rivalry than his assertion that "the Government was not prepared to pursue their own course by any means but those which were indicated to them; and these indications came from a quarter which wished for extremities." * The temper of the House of Commons on Wednesday, the 7th of June, was signally manifested by its cordial assent to Mr. Wilberforce's motion, that the debate should be adjourned till the following Friday. Mr. Wilberforce says in his Diary, "I endeavoured to interpose a pause, during which the two parties might have an opportunity of contemplating coolly the prospect before them." The proceedings of the House of Lords were also suspended. On the Friday, Mr. Brougham, by command of the Queen, transmitted a note to lord Liverpool, in which her Majesty said that, submitting to the declared sense of Parliament, she was willing to consider any arrangements that might be proposed consistent with her dignity and honour. Lord Liverpool, in reply, referred to a note delivered to Mr. Brougham on the 15th of April, as the proposition made on the part of the King. The Queen replied that she had never seen this note. Mr. Brougham explained that her official advisers had not had an opportunity of delivering it previous to the interview with lord Hutchinson. It was then agreed that two of the King's confidential servants should meet two persons to be named by the Queen, to frame an arrangement for settling the necessary particulars of her Majesty's future situation, upon the condition of her residence abroad. The duke of Wellington and lord Castlereagh were appointed on the part of the King, and Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman on the part of the Queen. This negotiation failed through the want of concession on either side upon one point alone. The insertion of the Queen's name in the Liturgy was demanded on the one side, and refused on the other, although something like an equivalent was tendered by the agents of the King. Mr. Wilberforce has succinctly stated the general character of these proceedings. "The concessions made by the King's servants, as Mr. Brougham afterwards declared in the House of Commons, were various and great. The name and rights of a Queen 'were granted to her Majesty without reserve, any recognition of which had formerly been carefully avoided. A royal yacht, a frigate, &c., were offered. It was agreed that her name and rank should be notified at the Court either of Rome or Milan-the capitals of the countries in which she had expressed her intention to reside; and that an Address should be presented to the Queen no less than another to the King, to thank Letter from Mr. Canning to Stapleton, "George Canning and his Times," p. 300. Mr. Huskisson, October 2nd, 1820. + Life, vol. v. p. 55. 168 FAILURES OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. [1820. her Majesty for having acceded to the wish of the House of Commons."* On the 19th of June this negotiation was announced to Parliament as having failed. Again Mr. Wilberforce attempted to put an end to this unfortunate conflict, by moving a resolution on the 22nd of June, in which, amidst many qualifying phrases, the House declared its opinion that if the Queen would forbear to press farther the adoption of those propositions on which any material difference yet remained, such forbearance would by no means be understood to indicate any wish to shrink from inquiry. The motion was agreed to by a very large majority. Mr. Wilberforce, as part of a deputation of members, waited the next morning upon the Queen with this resolution. He and his companions were saluted by the groans of the populace. The answer of the Queen rejected the proposed mediation. When this attempt failed Mr. Wilberforce was accused in the newspapers "with trifling with the House of Commons, and attempting to deceive the people." He had in his possession a triumphant answer to the charge in the positive engagement of the Queen's chief law-adviser. 'She will accede to your Address,' he wrote to Mr. Wilberforce (June 22nd), I pledge myself.' His influence was overborne by a less sagacious counsellor, and with a political forbearance which,' says the party whom it spared, 'I never knew equalled,' he suppressed this unfulfilled pledge, and bore quietly the groundless charge of an unreasonable interference." There was now an end of all attempts at compromise. Mr. Cauning, when he saw that the chances of an amicable adjustment were over, waited upon the King to express the impossibility for him to take part in any criminatory proceedings towards a person to whom he had formerly stood in confidential relations. The King, who sent his answer through lord Liverpool, insisted that Mr. Canning should remain one of his Ministers, following his own course with regard to the Queen. He went abroad, to avoid taking any part in discussions of the House of Commons. That House adjourned on the 26th, that the initiatory proceedings upon the Green Bag might take place in the Upper House. On the 4th of July the Secret Committee of the Lords made its Report, declaring that the evidence affecting the honour of the Queen was such as to require a solemn inquiry, which might be best effected in the course of a legislative proceeding. Lord Liverpool then proposed a Bill of Pains and Penalties, which had for its object "to deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the title, prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions of Queen-Consort of this realm, and to dissolve the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth." The second reading of the Bill was fixed for the 17th of August, and on that day commenced what is popularly known as The Queen's Trial. It is scarcely necessary for us to refer to the chronicles of the time for the purpose of recalling the impressions which live in our memory of the extraordinary scenes of that summer and autumn of 1820. On the 3rd of August the Queen had removed from her temporary abode in London, to take up her residence at Brandenburgh House at Hammersmith. For four months from that day there never was a cessation of processions marching to Hammersmith, or of cavalcades shouting around the Queen's carriage. On the day before the judicial "Life of Wilberforce," vol. v. p. 56. + Ibid. p. 65. |