formal declaration in council, and iu the exercise of his Majesty's legal authority; that the King, in yielding his own feelings and views to the wishes of parliament, could not be understood (in the absence of inquiry) to alter any of those impressions under which his Majesty had hitherto deliberately and advisedly acted; and that, as it was at the outset stated, the King could not be expected to retract any thing, no hope could be held out that the King's government would feel themselves justified in submitting such a proposition to his Majesty.

To this it was answered, that although the point of the Liturgy was certainly not included by name amongst the heads to be discussed, her Majesty's law-officers felt themselves entitled to bring it forward in its connection with the question of her Majesty's residence abroad. It was further contended, that the alteration in the Liturgy was contrary to the plain sense and even letter of the statute, and that it was highly objection. able on constitutional grounds, being contrary to the whole policy of the law respecting the security of the succession, and liable to be repeated in cases where the succession itself might be endangered by it: and therefore, it was said, that a step so taken might well be retraced without implying any unworthy concession. It was also urged, that the omission having been plainly made in contemplation of legal or parliamentary proceedings against her Majesty, it followed, when those proceedings were to be abandoned; that the

omission should be supplied; and it followed for the same reason, that supplying it would imply no retraction.

It was replied, that his Majesty had decided that her Majesty's name should not be inserted in the Liturgy, for several reasons not now necessary to discuss; that his Majesty had acted under legal advice, and in conformity to the practice of his royal predecessors; and that the decision of his Majesty had not been taken solely with a view to intended proceedings in Parlia ment or at law.

Independent of the inquiry instituted before parliament, his Majesty had felt himself long since called upon to adopt certain measures, to which his Majesty, as head of his family, and in the exercise of his prerogative, was clearly competent. These acts, together with that now under consideration, however reluctantly adopted, and however painful to his Majesty's feelings, were taken upon grounds which the discontinuance of the inquiry before parliament could not affect, and which his Majesty could not therefore be expected to rescind. The principle fairly applied would go, in truth, no further than to replace the parties in the relative position in which they stood immediately before her Majesty's arrival, and before the King's message was sent down to both Houses of Parliament.

After further discussion upon this point, it was agreed that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh should report to the Cabinet what

had passed, and come prepared with their determination to the next conference.

Her Majesty's law-officers then asked, whether, in the event of the above proposition not being adopted, any other proceeding could be suggested on the part of his Majesty's government, which might render her Majesty's residence abroad consistent with the recognition of her right, and the vindication of her character; and they specially pointed at the official introduction of her Majesty to foreign courts by the King's ministers abroad. Upon this it was observed, that this proposition appeared open to the same difficulty in point of principle; it was calling upon the King to retract the decision formally taken and avowed on the part of his Majesty a decision already notified to foreign courts; and to render the position of his Majesty's representatives abroad, in relation to her Majesty, inconsistent with that of their Sovereign at home; that the purposes for which this was sought by the Queen's law-officers was inconsistent with the principle admitted at the commencement of the conference, and was one that could not be reasonably required to be accomplished by the act of his Majesty-namely, to give to her Majesty's conduct that countenance which the state of the case, as at present before his Majesty, altogether precluded.

At the same time it was stated, that while his Majesty, consistently with the steps already adopted, could not authorize the public reception

of the Queen, or the introduction of her Majesty at foreign courts by his ministers abroad, there was nevertheless every disposition to see that branch of the orders already given faithfully and liberally executed, which enjoined the British ministers on the Continent to facilitate, within their respective missions, her Majesty's accommodation, and to contribute to her personal comfort and convenience.

Her Majesty's law-officers gave the King's servants no reason whatever to think that the Queen could be induced to depart from the propositions above stated, unless some others, founded on the same principle, were acceded to on the part of his Majesty's government.

Protocol of the Second Conference held at the Foreign Office, June 16, 1820.

The King's servants began the conference by stating that they had not failed to report with fidelity to the King's government the proposition brought forward by her Majesty's law-officers, that the Queen's name should be expressly included in the Liturgy, in order to protect her Majesty against any misconstruction of the grounds on which her Majesty might consent to reside abroad; that they were not deceived, for reasons already sufficiently explained, in anticipating the surprise of their colleagues at the pro

duction of this question, for the first time, on the part of her Majesty, more especially in the present advanced state of the proceedings, that they were authorized distinctly to state, that the King's servants could on no account advise bis Majesty to rescind the decision already taken and acted upon in this instance, and that to prevent misconceptions, the King's government had charged the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh to explain that they must equally decline to advise the King to depart from the principle already laid down by his Majesty for the direction of his representatives abroad, with regard to the public reception by the King's ministers abroad, and introduction of her Majesty at foreign courts: but that they were not only ready but desirous to guard, in future, by renewed orders against any possible want of attention to her Majesty's comfort and convenience by his Majesty's ministers abroad; and that, wherever her Majesty might think fit to establish her residence, every endeavour would be made to secure for her Majesty from that State, the fullest protection, and the utmost personal comfort, attention, and convenience.

In explanation of the position in which the King actually stood upon this question in his foreign relations, the instructions under which the ministers abroad now acted were communicated to the Queen's law-officers, and their attention was directed as well to the principles therein laid down, and from which his Majesty