CHAPTER IX.

QUEEN, PEERS AND PEOPLE.

The secret committee on the Queen's conduct-Encounter between the Queen and Princess Sophia-Bill of Pains and Penalties brought into the House of Lords-The Queen demands to know the charges against her-Her demand refused-The Queen again petitions-Lord Liverpool's speechHer indignant message to the Lords-Money spent to procure witnesses against her-Public feeling against the Italian witnesses-Dr. Parr's advice to the Queen-His zealous advocacy of her cause-Lord Erskine's efforts in her favour-Her hearty protest against legal oppression-Gross attack on her in a provincial paper-Cruel persecution of her-Her sharp philippic against ministers-Lord John Russell's letter to Mr. Wilberforce, and petition to the King-The Queen at Brandenburgh House— Death of the Duchess of York-Her eccentricities-Her characterAddresses to the Queen, and her replies.

THE secret committee charged with examining the documents in the sealed bags, made their report early in July. This report was to the effect that the documents contained allegations, supported by the concurrent testimony of witnesses of various grades in life, which deeply affected the honour of the Queen; charging her, as they did, with a "continued series of conduct highly unbecoming her majesty's rank and station, and of the most licentious character." The committee reluctantly recommended that the matter should become the subject of solemn inquiry by legislative proceeding.

The ministers postponed any explanation as to the course to be adopted by them upon this report, until the following day. The Queen exhibited no symptoms of being daunted by it. She appeared in public on the evening of the day in which the report was delivered, and if cheers could attest her innocence, the vox populi would have done it that night. As the queen's carriage was passing in the vicinity of Kensington Gate it

encountered that bearing the Princess Sophia. The two cousins passed each other without exchanging a sign of recognition, and the doughty livery servants of the princess showed that they had adopted the prejudices or convictions of their portion of the royal family, by refusing obedience to the commands of the mob, which had ordered them to uncover as they passed in presence of the Queen.

On Wednesday, the 5th of July, Lord Liverpool brought in the ever famous bill of Pains and Penalties, a bill of degradation and divorce; a bill, in fact, if not in words, in which a wife was charged, generally, with licentious conduct, whose real accuser was her husband, and which husband was the "first gentleman" by courtesy, and the most unclean liver, certainly, in all Europe. He raised in court the very dirtiest of hands, and prayed for vengeance on his wife, because hers were, allegedly, not spotless. In this bill the husband branded the very virtues of his consort as so many vices. He would recognise nothing good in her. He was in his wrath, like Hegel in his blasphemy, when the philosopher, challenged to admire the sparkling stars in the firmament, satanically reviled them as the leprosy of the skies.

The Queen demanded, by petition, to be furnished with the specific charges brought against her, and to be heard by her counsel in support of that demand. The House refused, and Lord Liverpool went on with his bill.

The Queen again interfered by petition, requesting to have the nature of the charges against her distinctly stated, and to be heard, in support of her request, by counsel. These requests were negatived. Lord Liverpool, then, in introducing the bill, did his utmost to save the King from being unfavourably contrasted in his character of complainant, with the Queen in that of defendant. He alleged that their Majesties were not before the house as individuals. The parties concerned were the Queen as accused party, and the state! The question to be considered was whether, supposing the allegations to be substantiated, impunity was to be extended to guilt, or justice be permitted to triumph. The bill he thus introduced noticed

the various acts of indiscretion which have been already recorded. These were the familiarity which existed between herself and her courier, whom she had ennobled, and in honour of whom she had unauthorisedly founded an order of chivalry, of which he had been appointed grand master. The bill further accused her of most scandalous, vicious, and disgraceful conduct, "with the said Bergami," but was silent as to time and place. The document concluded by proposing that Caroline Amelia Elizabeth should be "deprived of her rank, rights, and privileges as Queen, and that her marriage with the King be dissolved and disannulled to all intents and purposes." The bill, in short, pronounced her infamous. It was the penalty which she paid for the exercise of much indiscretion. Earl Grey complained of the want of specification, and asserted her Majesty's right to be furnished with the names of witnesses. Lord Liverpool, however, treated the assertion as folly, and the claim made as unprecedented and inexpedient.

A copy of the bill was delivered to the Queen by Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt. She received it not without emotion, and this was sufficiently great to give a confused tone to her observations on the occasion. Had the bill, she said, been presented to her a quarter of a century earlier it might have served the King's purpose better. She added that, as she should never meet her husband again in this world, she hoped, at least, to do so in the next, where certainly justice would be rendered her.

To the Lords she sent a message expressive of her indignant surprise that the bill should assume her as guilty, simply upon the report of a committee before whom not a single witness had been examined. Her friends continued to harass the government. In the Commons, Sir Ronald Ferguson attempted, though unsuccessfully, to obtain information as to the authority for the organising of the Milan commission for examining spies. That commission, he intimated, originated with the vice-chancellor, Sir John Leach, and had cost the country between thirty and forty thousand pounds, for one half of which sum, he added, Italian witnesses might be

procured who would blast the character of every man and woman in England.

The feeling against Italians did not require to be excited. Those who arrived at Dover to furnish evidence against the Queen were very roughly treated; and so fearful were the ministers that something worse might happen to them, that they were, after various changes of residence in London, transferred to Holland, much to the disgust of the Dutch, before they were finally cloistered up in Cotton Garden, at hand to furnish the testimony, for the bringing of which they received very liberal recompense.

Meanwhile, Dr. Parr, in ponderous sermons, exhorted her Majesty not to despise the chastening of the Lord, and the Queen's devout deportment at divine service was cited, by zealous advocates, as evidence in favour of her general propriety.

Indeed the Queen had no more zealous champion than the almost octogenarian Parr. On the fly-leaf of the Prayer-book in the reading-desk of his parish church at Hatton, he entered (and one can hardly say of Dr. Parr's act, on this occasion, dispar sibi), a stringent protest against the oppression to which she had been subjected; adding a conviction entertained by him of her complete innocence, and expressing a determination, although forbidden to pray for her by name, to add a prayer for her mentally, after uttering the words in the Liturgy, “all the royal family." In his heart the stout old man prayed fervently; nor did he confine himself to such service. A friend, knowing his opinions, his admiration of the Queen, and the friendly feelings which had long mutually existed between them, earnestly begged of him not to interfere in her affairs at this conjuncture. Dr. Parr answered the request by immediately ordering his trunk to be packed, and by proceeding to London, where he entered on the office of her Majesty's chaplain, procured the nomination of the Rev. M. Fellowes to the same office, and, in conjunction with him, and often alone, wrote those royal replies to popular addresses which are remarkable for their force, and for the ability with which they are made

to metaphorically scourge the King, without appearing to treat him with discourtesy.

There was as much zeal, and perhaps more discretion, in those impartial peers who, on occasion of Lord Liverpool moving the second reading of the bill for the 17th of August, insisted on the undoubted right of the Queen, as an accused party, to be made acquainted with the names of the witnesses who had come over to charge her with infamy. Lord Erskine was particularly urgent and impressive on this point, but all to no purpose, except the extracting an assurance from Lord Chancellor Eldon that the accused should have, at a fitting season, a proper opportunity to sift the character of every witness, as far as possible. Lord Erskine repeatedly endeavoured to obtain the full measure of justice for the accused, which he demanded. The Queen, herself, entered a hearty protest against the legal oppression; and further begged, by petition, that as the names of the witnesses against her were withheld, she might at least be furnished with a specification of the times and places, when and where she was said to have acted improperly. The request was characterised by Lord Eldon as "perfectly absurd," seeing that the Queen could make no use of the information, if she intended, as declared by her, to defend her case at the early period named, of the 17th of August. The reply was harsh, insulting, and illogical.

But to harshness and insult she became inured by daily experience. It may be safely said, that if such a drama had to be enacted in our own days, the press would certainly not distinguish itself now exactly as it did then. Party spirit might be as strong, but there would be more refinement in the expression of it. And assuredly, not even a provincial paper would say of a person before trial, as a Western journal said of the Queen, that she was as much given to drunkenness as to other vices, and that it was ridiculous to hold up as an innocent victim a woman who, "if found on our pavement, would be committed to Bridewell and whipped."

But ministers themselves were not on a bed of roses. They were exceedingly embarrassed by the Queen's announcement