ton was equally splendid.' Brougham and Denman were in plain clothes. Five separate conferences were held on five successive days, and five elaborate protocols were drawn up. But the conferences proved as abortive as any sober person might from the first have foreseen that they would be. It was plain from the first' that the Duke and Lord Castlereagh had nothing like full powers from the king.' Brougham himself admitted that he and Denman had not full powers from the queen. Fettered in their action, there is no wonder that the negotiators should have failed; the only cause for surprise is that men should have consented to negotiate on such terms. At the very first conference Brougham dexterously raised the point on which the negotiation was ultimately broken off. 'Speaking of some expedient to reconcile her Majesty to a stipulation that she should reside on the Continent, to which he merely said that she had no insuperable objection, he suggested in a sort of hurried whisper that the restoration of her name to the Liturgy might answer that purpose. Lord Castlereagh promptly replied, "You might as easily move Carlton House." And with this answer the conference might, in reality, have broken up. But the negotiators went on negotiating for four days more. In the course of the negotiation the concessions made by the king were various and great. • The name and rights of a queen were granted to her Majesty without reserve. A royal yacht, a frigate, &c., were offered for her journey.' 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 her Majesty for having acceded to the wish of the House of Commons.'1 These conces 1 Wilberforce, vol. v. p 56. Cf. Ann. Reg., 1820, Hist., pp. 158-167. Brougham, vol. ii. p. 375. Denman, CHAP. VI. 1820. CHAP. VI. 1820. Failure of the negotiation. sions, if they had been made ten days sooner, would probably have prevented the queen's journey to England. If they had been accompanied by the graceful insertion of the queen's name in the Liturgy, they would have satisfied all parties, and averted the scandal, which was daily coming nearer. The Ministry had the folly to take their stand on 'trifles light as air.' Never had the danger of civil war been risked for so trivial an object. Parliament, in the meanwhile, had held its hand, anxiously awaiting the result of the negotiation. On Monday, the 19th of June, the Ministry had the mortification to announce in both Houses that the negotiation had failed. On the following day, Wilberforce, who had already acted as peace-maker, rose to announce his intention of making a motion on the subject. No one knew what his intended motion was; wrapping himself up in mystery, he declined to disclose its terms, and both parties were obliged to wait for its disclosure. Wilberforce really desired the restoration of the queen's name to the Liturgy. The fact that he should have so desired it is a strong proof that the concession should have been made. But Wilberforce refrained from moving an address to the king with this object. The king, it was certain, would not yield; and, if the king would not yield, the only chance of an arrangement depended on the queen's giving way. Wilberforce saw the difficulty which prevented the queen from surrendering her claim. But he adroitly concluded that, though the queen could not yield her claim to the king, she might waive it at the request of the House of Commons. With this view he drew up an address to be presented to the queen. He found a seconder in Stuart Wortley, the great Yorkshire magnate, who had succeeded him in the representation of the Northern county, and whose vast possessions ultimately won a barony for himself and an earldom for his grandson. The proposal led to a singularly able debate. In CHAP. VI. the course of it Denman used the memorable words which made so great an impression on the House and the country. It had been suggested that, though all particu- 1820. lar mention of the queen's name was omitted from the Liturgy, she might yet be considered as being comprised in the general prayer for the royal family.' 'If her Majesty,' he replied, was included in any general prayer, it was in the prayer for all who are desolate and oppressed.' 6 quent force. Wilberforce's motion was carried by 391 votes to Subse124.1 Wilberforce, Stuart Wortley, and Sir Thomas failure of Acland were deputed to carry it on the following Satur- Wilberday to the queen. It was doubtful what the queen would do. She will accede to your address, I pledge myself,' Brougham had written to Wilberforce. Her counsel unanimously declined to offer her any advice on the subject. An immense mob, collected before her door, anxiously awaited her decision, and amused themselves in the interim by hooting Wilberforce and his fellow-peacemakers. For a few minutes the result was uncertain. The queen then announced to her advisers her solemn determination to reject Wilberforce's proposition. The form of the answer, which she had herself prepared, was hurriedly corrected by Brougham and Denman. The deputation was called in, and received the queen's reply. Her decision was greeted with enthusiastic cheering by the mob which surrounded her door. in the House of Lords. The baffled mediators had nothing left to do but to First proannounce the failure of their mission. Their failure left ceedings the Ministry no alternative but to proceed against the queen. They had committed themselves to the demands of the king so far that they could not, now that there was no longer a chance of an arrangement, avoid going farther. Another scene in the strange drama had concluded, and a new one was about to begin. Two days after the failure of the mediation, the queen presented a 1 Hansard, New Series, vol. i. pp. 1185, 1270, 1314. VI. 1820. CHAP. petition to the House of Lords protesting against the institution of a secret inquiry into her conduct. On the motion of Lord Dacre counsel were called in, and heard in support of her prayer. Brougham and Denman contended that all the proceedings should be delayed till after the arrival of the witnesses for the queen. Until these witnesses arrived they could not become sufficiently acquainted with the habits and character of the witnesses against his illustrious client to cross-examine them to any useful purpose.' Denman, in the course of his speech, referred to the process by which the evidence against the queen had been collected; and applied to Leach, who notoriously desired the Chancellorship, Emilia's description of 'Iago' I will be hanged, if some eternal villain, Some cogging, cozening slave, to get some office, Lord Eldon was delighted with this attack upon Leach, Why should he call her whore? who keeps her company? O, heaven, that such companions thou 'dst unfold; To lash the rascals naked through the world, the applause was redoubled. The pit twice stood up 1 Ann. Reg., 1820, Hist., p. 392. Hansard, New Series, vol. i. pp., 1323-1338. VI. 1820. com Popular demonstrations of this character ought to CHAP. have warned the Government of the folly of the course which they were pursuing. But nothing could turn the king from his violent resolution to degrade his wife; and the Ministry had not the courage to withstand their sovereign. Brougham and Denman's application was rejected; the 'green bag' was referred to a secret committee; and The secret the committee, on the 4th of July, reported that the nittee's charges deeply affect not only the honour of the queen, report. but also the dignity of the Crown and the moral feeling and honour of the country. In their opinion it is indispensable that they should become the subject of a solemn inquiry, which it appears to the committee may be best effected in the course of a legislative proceeding.' On the following day Lord Liverpool introduced a bill to deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the title, prerogative rights, privileges, and exemptions of Queen Consort of this realm, and to dissolve the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth.'1 The bill was immediately read a first time, and the second reading fixed for the 17th of August. of the and the reception nesses. The strength of the popular feeling in the queen's The feeling favour became every day more marked. Addresses populace poured in upon her Majesty from all classes of the English people. The Common Council of the City of London of the witformally petitioned both houses of Parliament to give up the bill. One of the members of the Council insisted, amidst rapturous applause, that there should be no royal way of evading the obligations of married life.' When the queen took a drive in the Park the people removed the horses from her carriage and drew it themselves. When the Princess Elizabeth's carriage met the queen's the mob peremptorily commanded the princess's 1 Hansard, New Series, vol. ii. pp. 168, 211, where the Bill of Pains and Penalties will be found. |