The re gent's ani mosity Whigs. They insisted upon the change in order to give "to a The leaders of the opposition were persuaded of the hollowness of all the proposals which had against the been made to them; and, knowing the hostility of the court, were as unwilling as their opponents, that these overtures should lead to any result. Had they been less lofty and unbending, they might perhaps have overcome the obstacles which they dreaded. The regent had not the stubborn will of his royal father, and might have been won over to their side again, if they had once established themselves at court. So thought many of their disappointed followers: but the great lords judged otherwise, and proudly shrank from the ungracious task of combating the disfavour of the prince, and the intrigues of his courtiers. The prince, indeed, had now become so violent against the opposition, that we are reminded of George III. in the days of the coalition. "He told Lord Wellesley that he had Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 214-220; 42; Horner's Mem., ii. 111, 311; Lord Grenville to the Marquess of Buckingham, June 6th and 9th, 1812; Court and Cabinets of the Regency, i. 353, 377; Mr. T. Grenville.-Ibid., 354; Life and Opinions of Earl Grey, 300-308. no objection to one or two of them individually, but as a body he would rather abdicate the regency than ever come into contact with them." And again, after the failure of Lord Moira's mission,-" three times that day, before dinner and after dinner, he declared that if Lord Grey had been forced upon him, he should have abdicated." 2 tution of Lord These negotiations, meanwhile, had served their pur- Reconstipose. The old administration was immediately recon- the minisstituted, under the Earl of Liverpool; and when com- try under plaints were made in the House of Commons, that a Liverpool. strong administration had not been formed, in compliance with their address, the blame was thrown upon the impracticable leaders of the opposition. Ministers were now safe, and gained an easy triumph over Mr. Stuart Wortley and Lord Milton, who endeavoured to unsettle the government, by further representations to the regent.3 Henceforth the ascendency of Tory politics, which George III. had established, and which the regent had been expected to overthrow, was maintained more firmly than ever. By the influence of the crown it had been created; and by the same influence it was upheld during the regency, and throughout the reign of George IV. All opposition being thus defeated, and the ministers and the court party being agreed, the prince regent had no further need of personal interposition in the government of the country. Ascend my of Tory po litics. ings On his accession to the throne, he was .dissatis- Proceedfied with ministers, for resisting his demands for a against larger civil list: but submitted to their judgment, and the Queen, even, in his speech to Parliament, disclaimed any wish for an increased revenue.4 Soon afterwards 1 Court and Cabinets of the Regency, i. 323. 2 Moore's Mem. by Lord John Russell, i. 360. 3 June 11th, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 397. 4 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 363; Com. Journ., lxxv. 110. 1820. his painful relations with the queen led to procedings of which his ministers could not approve: but in which, with the honourable exception of Mr. Canning', they were induced to support him. The king's personal feelings and honour were concerned; and the embarrassing conduct of the queen herself, led them to accept the responsibility of measures to which the king already stood committed. No sooner had he succeeded to the throne than he desired to obtain a divorce; but his ministers, at that time, resisted his wishes, and explained their objections, in some able minutes of the cabinet. He obtained from them, however, an assurance that, if her Majesty should return to England, they would no longer oppose him in his cherished object. They were little prepared for so embarrassing an event: but it was soon to be brought about by the offensive measures which the king had taken, and his ministers had sanctioned, against her. The queen had already been irritated by two great insults. Our ambassadors, acting upon their instructions from home, had prevented her recognition as queen of England at foreign courts; and her name had been omitted, by command of the king, from the liturgy of the church. Even the legality of this latter act was much doubted. It was at 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. 1 Stapleton's Life of Canning, 290-225, 315-323. 2 10th and 14th February, 1820; Stapleton's Life of Canning, 266, 279, 299; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 115. 3 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 368. 4 Debates in Lords and Commons, 1820, on the papers relating At to the conduct of the queen. Dr. Phillimore, writing to the Marquess of Buckingham, 16th Jan. 1821, said: "The general opinion of lawyers is, I think, unfavourable to the claim."-Court and Cabinets of George IV., i. 109. 5 Mr. C. Wynn to the Marquess of Buckingham.—Ibid., 116. 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 endeavoured 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 hasttened 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 recognise 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.1 ministers. And now the threat was carried out to the fullest Conduct of extent, by the introduction of a bill into the House of Lords, to deprive her Majesty of her title, prerogatives, and rights, and to dissolve her marriage with the king. 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." 2 But on the 1 Debates, 19th June, 1820, when the failure of these negotiations was announced; Stapleton's Life of Canning, 285-287. 2 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 372. 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. 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 |