least so disputable as to be an unwise exercise of the prerogative. Such insults as these, naturally provoked the queen to insist upon her proper recognition. At the same time they aroused popular sympathy in her cause, which encouraged her to proceed to extremities. The ministers vainly attempted a compromise: but it was too late. The queen was already on her way to England, loudly asserting her rights. They endeavored to prevent her approach, by submitting a proposal that she should receive an annuity of 50,000l. a year, on renouncing her title, and continuing to reside abroad; and threatening proceedings against her in Parliament, if she refused these conditions. She refused them, and hastened to England, when preliminary proceedings were at once commenced. Even now there was still hope of a compromise, sought by the queen herself. The king was willing to drop all further proceedings against her, and to recognize her title, on condition of her residing abroad; but the queen demanded the restoration of her name in the liturgy, and her recognition in at least one foreign court, which the king refused to concede.2 And now the threat was carried out to the fullest extent, Conduct of by the introduction of a bill into the House of the ministers. Lords, to deprive her Majesty of her title, prerogatives, and rights, and to dissolve her marriage with the king. The ministers were fully sensible of the difficulties, and even of the danger, of yielding to the king's desire to prosecute this formidable measure. Lord Eldon, writing in June, 1820, said, "I think no administration, who have any regard for him, will go the length he wishes, as an administration, and if they will, they cannot take Parliament along with them: that body is afraid of disclosures, — not on one side only, — which may affect the monarchy itself." 1 Mr. C. Wynn to the Marquess of Buckingham. — Ibid., 116. 2 Debates, 19th June, 1820, when the failure of these negotiations was announced. 3 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 372. But on the failure of all their attempts to effect an accommodation of the royal differences, they yielded, against their better judgment, to the revengeful spirit of the king. - -- The disgraceful incidents of the "queen's trial" are too well known to need repetition, even if they ought otherwise to find a place in this history. But what were the constitutional aspects of the case? The king had resolved to execute an act of vengeance rather than of justice against the queen, whose wrongs had aroused for her protection, the strongest popular feelings, sympathy with a woman, and resentment of oppression. All the power of the Crown was arrayed on one side, and the excited passions of the people on the other. The impending conflict was viewed with alarm by statesmen of all parties. Many sagacious observers dreaded a civil war. The ministers foresaw the dangers to which the country was exposed: they disapproved of proceedings which, without their acquiescence, could not have been attempted;-yet they lent themselves to gratify the anger and hatred of the king. They were saved from the consummation of their worst fears by the withdrawal of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, at its last stage in the House of Lords: but in proceeding so far, in opposition to their own judgment, they had sinned against their constitutional obligations, as responsible ministers. By consenting to act as instruments of the king's pleasure, they brought him into dangerous collision with his people. Had they refused to permit, what they could not justify to Parliament or the country, they would have spared the king his humiliation, and the state its perils. Not to have supported the king in a cause affecting his deepest feelings and his honor, might have exposed them to the reproach of deserting their royal master in his utmost need, and even of siding with his hated consort:1 but a 1 Lord Brougham has attributed their conduct solely to an unworthy desire to retain their places ( Works, iv. 33 ;) but perhaps the suggestion in the text is nearer the truth. higher sense of their responsibilities, and greater firmness in asserting them, would have made them mediators between the king, on the one side, and the queen, the Parliament, and the people, on the other.1 imosity against the دو - some The Opposition had espoused the queen's cause, The king's an- to protect her from oppression, some to lead a popular cause against the ministers, and others, Opposition. like Cobbett, to gratify their bitter hatred of the government. The king's resentment against those who had opposed him in Parliament, equalled that of his father against Mr. Fox. Mr. Fremantle, writing Dec. 29, 1820, to the Marquess of Buckingham, said: "His invective against Lord Grey was stronger and more violent than I can possibly repeat; and again: "What I am most anxious to observe to you, was his increased hostility and indignation against the Opposition, and more personally against Lord Grey." Yet the same acute observer, who knew the king well, writing again Jan. 24, 1821, said: "Lord Grenville fancies a Whig government could not last six months, reasoning from the conduct of George III; but in this I am persuaded he would find himself deceived, for the same decision and steadiness of mind does not belong to his successor. And should the change once take place, new attachments and habits would prevail, and obliterate all former anger." Meanwhile, the popularity of the king, which had suffered 1 Mr. Canning wrote to Mr. Huskisson, Oct. 2, 1820, that the ministers ought to have held this language to the king: "Sir, — divorce is impossible!' 'What! if she comes, if she braves, if she insults?' 'Yes, sir, in any case, divorce is impossible. Other things may be tried, other expedients may be resorted to; but divorce, we tell you again, is impossible. It can never be ;' and see the fruits" (of their conduct), — " a government brought into contempt and detestation; a kingdom thrown into such ferment and convulsion, as no other kingdom or government ever recovered from without a revolution; but I hope we shall." — Stapleton's Life of Canning, 299. 2 Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV., i. 99. 8 Ibid., 112. Popularity of for a time from these proceedings, was speedily recovered. -- Motion of Mr. the influence June 24, 1822. Though the influence of the Crown was acknowledged as fully as at any time in the late reign, it had not been brought under parliamentary discussion for Brougham on many years; when, in 1822, Mr. Brougham in- of the Crown, troduced a motion on the subject. He proposed to declare that the influence of the Crown was "unnecessary for maintaining its constitutional prerogatives, destructive of the independence of Parliament, and inconsistent with the well-governing of the realm." By comparing the present expenditure with that of 1780, the number of places and commissions, the cost of collecting the revenue, and the host of persons looking up to government for patronage, - he pronounced the influence of the Crown to have been greatly increased since Mr. Dunning's celebrated resolution. He admitted, however, that the number of placemen in the House had been diminished. In the time of Lord Carteret there had been two hundred, and at an antecedent period even three hundred in 1780 there had been between eighty and ninety; and in 1822, eighty-seven, many of whom, however, could not be said to be dependent on the Crown. He drew an entertaining historical sketch of the manner in which every party, in turn, so long as it held office, had enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons, but had lost that confidence immediately it was in Opposition, a coincidence, he attributed to the ascendency of the Crown, which 6.55 alone enabled any ministry to command a majority. The Marquess of Londonderry, in a judicious speech, pointed out that the authority of the Crown had been controlled by the increasing freedom of the press, and by other causes; and after a debate of some interest, Mr. Brougham's motion was negatived by a large majority.1 The king's views on the Catholic question. Early in his reign, the king was supposed to be in favor of a measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics; and its friends were even speculating upon his encouragement to carry it through Parliament. But in 1824 he had become "violently anti-Catholic;" and so paramount was his influence supposed to be over the deliberations of Parliament, that the friends of the cause believed it to be hopeless. Until the death of Lord Liverpool, the Catholic claims having small hope of success, it was sufficient to let the king's opinions be known through common report. But when Mr. Canning, the brilliant champion of the Roman Catholics, had become first minister, his Majesty thought it necessary to declare his sentiments, in a more authentic shape. And accordingly he sent for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, and "directed them to make known to their clergy that his sentiments on the Coronation Oath, and on the Catholic question were those his revered father, George III., and lamented brother, the Duke of York, had maintained during their lives, and which he himself had professed when Prince of Wales, and which nothing could shake; finally, assuring them that the recent ministerial arrangements were the result of circumstances, to his Majesty equally unforeseen and unpleasant." And when political necessity had wrung from Sir 1 Ayes 216, Noes 101.. Hansard's Debates, 2d Ser., vii. 1266. 2"I hear he is for it," said the Duke of Wellington to Mr. Fremantle. "By the by," he added, "I hear Lady Conyngham supports it, which is a great thing." — Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV., i. 148 ; ib. 218. 8 Ibid., ii. 103, 169, 211. 4 Speech of the Bishop of London at a dinner of the clergy of his dio |
