confidence; but the offer was not accepted.

On

the 22d of June Mr. Wilberforce disclosed his plan. It was an unpromising, and, considering the mystery in which it was enveloped, a laughable commonplace, comprised in two resolutions;-the first expressing the regret of the house at the failure of the recent attempts; the second, soliciting the queen to gratify the house by conceding a point or two, for the sake of an amicable arrangement. Lord Archibald Hamilton proposed an amendment, the object of which was the insertion of the queen's name in the liturgy. After an animated debate, in which sir Francis Burdett distinguished himself, the original motion, supported of course by the ministers, was carried, by a majority of 391 to 134.

A deputation, composed of Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and sir Thomas Acland, waited on the queen with the resolutions of the house. Their expedition was truly ignominious. The queen declined complying with their recommendation; and on their way they were hissed and hooted by the populace. The object of Mr. Wilberforce was, that the queen should abandon the insertion of her name in the liturgy. Coming from a ministerial partisan, or from a man whose piety did not rise above the worldly standard, this proposition would have been consistent. But when Mr. Wilberforce proposed, and the party called saints strenuously recommended, that the queen should abandon the spiritual comfort of the prayers of the people, they afforded another melancholy proof how little truth there is among men, after due allowance made for human infirmity and human imposture. All

hope of an adjustment having now vanished, the house of commons, on the motion of Lord Castlereagh, voted a further adjournment, in order to leave the initiative of proceedings to the house of lords.

The discussions in parliament, the negotiations out of it, the publication of what may be called the diplomatic correspondence, and of the minutes, affectedly called protocols, of the five conferences,-in short, every day and hour of delay, strengthened the position, increased and emboldened the partisans, and inflamed the courage of the queen. All that portion of the press of the country which was not condemned to toil at the tail of the administration, which was free to choose its party from motives of honest conviction, or in a spirit of independent trading speculation, advocated her cause with ardour. The kingdom became one vast arena of dispute. Extrinsic passions combined with those inherent in the question, and reason was seldom heard. But the queen had with her the more generous impulses and higher passions which agitate masses; whilst the king and his ministers were chiefly sustained by the influence of government patronage, the hireling malice and mendacity of court satellites, the subservient ambition of the higher, and the aspiring scurrility of the lower clergy.

On the 26th of June, whilst the secret committee was still sitting, lord Dacre presented a petition from the queen, in which she protested against any secret enquiry, demanded time to bring her witnesses from abroad, and requested to be heard by her counsel. Messrs. Brougham, Denman, and Williams presented themselves at the bar. The two first

VOL. III.

spoke with great energy of the hardships of the queen's case, and the necessity of delay. On the 4th of July the secret committee made its report. Lord Dacre next day presented a petition from the queen, to be heard against it by her counsel. This was refused; and lord Liverpool, in pursuance of the report, brought in a bill of pains and penalties. It was entitled "An act 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 bill was read a first time, and a copy ordered to be sent to the queen. She received it from the hand of sir Thomas Tyrwhitt, the usher of the black rod, with the following ambiguous remark: It is too late, sir Thomas; twenty-five years ago it might have been of some use to his majesty." According to some she spoke in a tone of emotion and distress; according to others, and with perhaps more consistency, she expressed herself in a tone of malicious pleasantry and good humour.

The first reading having taken place, counsel were heard on behalf of the queen; but with the restriction that they should limit themselves to the time and mode of proceeding. Mr. Brougham's speech within this perilous boundary, and perpetually disturbed by lord Eldon, was a perfect tour de force in the art of advocacy. The second reading was fixed for the 17th of August. On the 11th of July the queen petitioned, and on the 14th lord Erskine moved, that she should be furnished with a list of

the witnesses against her. This advantage she would have had of right, in common with every other British subject, were the form of proceeding an indictment or impeachment for treason. But the majority of the lords, under the direction of lord Eldon, took advantage of the legal technicality to withhold from her the great ægis of the subject against perjured witnesses, and the power and passions of the crown. A specification of the charges, which she declared was necessary for enabling her to produce defensive evidence, was also refused.

If any hopes of pacification now remained, they were put to flight by the queen's "Letter to the King," a vehement tirade, which recapitulated her wrongs, past and present, and attacked, with much rhetorical force and bitterness, her husband, his ministers, and even the two houses of parliament, against whose jurisdiction as a tribunal she protested. “Even,” said she," on the slave-mart the cries of Oh! my mother, my mother! Oh! my child, my child!' have prevented a separation of the victims of avarice; but your advisers, more inhuman than the slave-dealers, remorselessly tore the mother from the child. . . . . Your court was the scene, not of polished manners and refined intercourse, but of low intrigue and scurrility. Spies, bacchanalian tale-bearers, and foul conspirators, swarmed," &c. Speaking of the house of lords, she says, "To regard such a body as a court of justice, would be to calumniate that sacred name; and for me to suppress the expression of my opinion would be to lend myself to my own destruction, and to an imposition on the nation and the world."...

I protest against this species of trial. I demand a trial in a court where the jurors are taken impartially from among the people, and the proceedings are open and fair. . . . . I will not, except compelled by actual force, submit to any sentence not pronounced by a court of justice."

The house of lords met, after an adjournment of some days, to discuss the second reading on the 17th of August. The duke of Leinster moved that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill of pains and penalties should be rescinded. This motion was negatived, and counsel were called in. The counsel in support of the bill were the king's attorney and solicitor-general (sir Robert Gifford and sir John Copley), the king's advocate (sir C. Robinson), Dr. Adams and Mr. Parke ; against it, Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman (the queen's attorney and solicitor-general), Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Williams, Tindal, and Wilde. Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman were heard against the bill. Their respective arguments may be perused with interest as models of the first order in different styles of judiciary eloquence. Mr. Denman was interrupted for a moment by a general movement around him: it was caused by the presence of the queen, who came for the first time unexpectedly to witness the proceedings. The king's attorney and solicitor replied with much ability.

On the 19th of August, lords Grey and King made successive attempts, by motions, to quash the investigation. The respective divisions were 181 to 65, and 179 to 64. The attorney-general, after