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 honour, might have exposed them to the reproach of deserting their royal master in his utmost need, and even of siding with his hated consort but a 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.2 The Opposition had espoused the queen's cause, some to protect her from oppression,- some to lead a popular cause against the ministers,-and others, 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."3 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 1 Lord Brougham has attributed to; but divorce, we tell you again, their conduct solely to an unworthy is impossible. It can never be;' desire to retain their places (Works, and see the fruits (of iv. 33); but perhaps the suggestion in their conduct), -"a government the text is nearer the truth. 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 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 3 Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV. i. 99. The king's animosity against the Opposition. Popularity of Geo. IV. Motion of Mr. 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." "1 Meanwhile, the popularity of the king, which had suffered for a time from these proceedings, was speedily recovered. The monarchy had sustained no permanent injury its influence was not in the least impaired. The personal character of the king was not such as to command the respect or attachment of the people; yet at no previous period had their loyalty been more devoted -never, perhaps, had the adulation of royalty been so extravagant and servile. There were discontent and turbulence among some classes of the people; but the Crown and its ministers ruled supreme over Parliament, the press, the society and the public opinion of the country. Though the influence of the Crown was acknowledged Brougham as fully as at any time in the late reign, it had not been on the in- brought under parliamentary discussion for many years; when, in 1822, Mr. Brougham introduced 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 antece fluence of the Crown, June 24, 1822. 1 Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV., i. 112. dent period even three hundred in 1780 there had been between eighty and ninety; and in 1822, eightyseven,—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 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.' Early in his reign, the king was supposed to be in favour of a measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics; and its friends were even speculating upon his lie quesencouragement to carry it through Parliament.2 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 Canter 1 Ayes 216, Noes 101.-Hansard's Debates, 2nd Ser., vii. 1266. "I hear he is for it," said the Duke of Wellington to Mr. Fremantle. "By the by," he added, VOL. I. I "I hear Lady Conyngham supports 3 Ibid., ii. 103, 169, 211. The king's views on the Catho tion. bury, 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 Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, a conviction that a measure of relief could no longer be withheld, it was with extreme difficulty that they obtained his assent to its introduction. After he had given his consent, he retracted, and again yielded it:- attempted to deny, or explain it away to his anti-Catholic advisers: complained of his ministers, and claimed the pity of his friends. "If I do give my assent," said he, "I'll go to the baths abroad, and from thence to Hanover: I'll return no more to England . . . . I'll return no more: let them get a Catholic king in Clarence." Such had once been the threat of the stout old king, who, whatever his faults, at least had firmness and strength of will. But the king who now uttered these feeble lamentations, found solace in his trouble, by throwing his arms round the neck of the aged Eldon. And again, in imitation of his father, having assented to the passing of the Act, which he had deliberately authorised his ministers to carry, he gratified his animosity against those who 1 Speech of the Bishop of London at a dinner of the clergy of his diocese, 8th May, 1827; Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV., ii. 324; Gentleman's Magazine, xcvii. 457. 2 Peel's Mem., i. 274, &c.; and see Chapter XII., on Civil and Religious Liberty. 3 Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 8287. Peel's Mem., i. 343-350. |