some excitement was raised when, on the presence of Rastelli being required, it was found that he had been permitted to leave the country. In the opinion of some, he had been conveyed away by the prosecuting party. A few thought he had disappeared with the connivance of both sides.

The entire evidence was closed on the 30th of October; when the Lords adjourned to the 2nd of November, from which day to the 6th, the peers were engaged in debates upon the evidence, almost every member assigning reasons for the vote he intended to give. Mr. Rush describes succinctly and vividly the character of the debates as the case approached its close. It was 66 stormy" in the extreme. "Earl Grey declared that if their lordships passed the bill, it would prove the most disastrous step the House had ever taken. Earl Grosvenor said that, feeling as he did the evils which the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy (a measure taken before her trial came on) was likely to entail upon the nation, as well as its repugnance to law and justice, he would, had he been Archbishop of Canterbury, have thrown the prayer-book in the King's face, sooner than have consented to it. On the other hand, the Duke of Montrose said, even after the ministers had abandoned the bill, that so convinced was he of her guilt, whatever others might think to do, he, for one, would never acknowledge her as his Queen."

The house

The bill, however, was not yet abandoned. divided on the 6th of the month, on the second reading, which was carried by 123 to 95, giving ministers a majority of 28. The Queen immediately signed a protest against the nature of the proceedings. The document terminated with these words: "She now most deliberately, and before God, asserts that she is wholly innocent of the crime laid to her charge, and she awaits with unabated confidence the final result of this unparalleled investigation; "-and as she signed the protest she exclaimed, with a dash of her pen, "there 'Caroline Regina' in spite of them."

By a clever manoeuvre of her friends, the ministers were next cast into a minority. The house had gone into committee

on the divorce clause. The clause was distasteful to some of the bishops. Dr. Howley, indeed, is said to have held that the King could do no wrong, even if he broke the seventh commandment. Others, however, thought that a man so notoriously guilty in that respect was not justified in seeking to destroy his wife, even if she were as guilty as he was. The clause was objected to by many peers, and popularly it was distasteful for something of the same reasons. The ministers, thinking to gain a point by abandoning a clause, moved the omission of this very clause of divorce. But the Queen's friends immediately saw that by the retaining of the clause, the bishops and others who preferred the bill without it would be less likely to vote for the passing of the bill itself. They accordingly voted that the divorce clause should be retained, and the ministers, in a minority on this point, proposed the third reading of the bill, with the clause in question in the body of it. One hundred and eight voted for it, and ninetynine against it. The ministry were thus only in a majority of nine, exactly the number of the peers who were members of the cabinet,—and after a short delay, Lord Liverpool made a merit of surrendering their measure as an offering to popular feeling, although they had carried the bill,-with too small a majority, as he confessed, to enable ministers to act upon it.

The Queen was in her own apartment in the House of Lords when the intelligence was brought her by her excited counsel, that the bill of Pains and Penalties had been abandoned. She received the intimation in perfect silence, hardly seeming to comprehend the fact, or perhaps scarcely knowing how it should be appreciated. The ministers had carried their bill, but even their withdrawing of it would not prove her guiltless. "I shall never forget," says one present, "what was my emotion when it was announced to me that the bill of Pains and Penalties was to be abandoned. I was walking towards the west end of the long corridor of the House of Lords, wrapt in reverie, when one of the door-keepers touched me on the shoulder, and told me the news. I turned instantly to go back into the House, when I met the Queen coming out alone

from her waiting-room, preceded by an usher. She had been there unknown to me. I stopped involuntarily. I could not, indeed, proceed, for she had a dazed look, more tragical than consternation: she passed me. The usher pushed open the folding-doors of the great staircase; she began to descend, and I followed instinctively two or three steps behind her. She was evidently all shuddering, and she took hold of the bannisters, pausing for a moment. Oh, that sudden clutch Never say again to me

with which she caught the railing! that any actor can feel like a principal. It was a visible manifestation of unspeakable grief—an echoing of the voice of the soul. Four or five persons came in from below before she reached the bottom of the stairs. I think Alderman Wood was one of them, but I was in indescribable confusion. . . I rushed past, and out into the hastily-assembling crowd.

I knew not where I was; but in a moment, a shouting in the balcony above, on which a number of gentlemen from the interior of the house were gathering, roused me. The multitude then began to cheer, but at first there was a kind of stupor. The sympathy, however, soon became general, and winged by the voice, soon spread up the street. Every one instantly, between Charing Cross and Whitehall, turned and came rushing down, filling Old and New Palace Yards, as if a deluge was unsluiced." *

* Diary of Court, &c. of George IV.

VOL. II.

C C

CHAPTER XI.

TRISTIS GLORIA."

The result of the Queen's trial advantageous to neither party-The Queen's application to parliament for a residence-Lord Liverpool's reply-Royal message from the Queen to parliament, and its discourteous reception— The Queen goes to St. Paul's to return thanks-Uncharitable conduct of the Cathedral authorities-Their unseemly behaviour rebuked by the Lord Mayor-Revenue for the Queen recommended by the King-accepted by her-The Coronation of George the Fourth-The Queen claims a right to take part in the ceremony-Her right discussed-Not allowed--Determines to be present-The Queen appears at the Abbey, and is refused admittance-With a broken spirit retires--Her sense of degradationThe King labours to give éclat to his Coronation-The Coronation-festival in Westminster Hall described-Appearance of the Duke of WellingtonHis banquet to the King-The King's speech on the occasion-True greatness of the Duke-Anecdote of Louis XIV. and Lord Stair-Regal banquet to the foreign ministers-The Duke of Wellington appears as an Austrian general-Incident of the Coronation-Lord Londonderry's banquet to the minister of Louis Napoleon.

THE Queen was in tears when the "people" were rejoicing, less certainly for her sake, than for the popular victory which had been achieved. There was nothing in the issue of the trial for any party to rejoice at. The ministry could not exult, for although they had carried the bill, which declared the Queen worthy of degradation from her rights and privileges, rank and station, yet they refrained from acting upon it, because the popular voice was hoarse with menace, so unfairly had the case of the two antagonists been tried before the august tribunal of the peers.

The popular voice had been heeded, and was satisfied with the triumph. Caroline must have felt that she was really of but secondary account in the matter, that the victory was not for her, and that righteously or unrighteously, her reputation had been irretrievably shaken into ruins.

Her great spirit, however, was as yet undaunted. The bill was no sooner withdrawn, when she formally applied to Lord Liverpool to be furnished with a fitting place of residence, and a suitable provision. The premier's reply informed her Majesty that the King was by no means disposed to permit her to reside in any of the royal palaces; but that the pecuniary allowance which she had hitherto enjoyed, should be continued to her until parliament should again meet for the regular despatch of business.

The then present parliament was about to be prorogued, and the Queen was resolved that, if possible, that body should not separate until it had granted her what, as Queen Consort, she had a right to demand. Her solicitor-general, accordingly, went down to the Commons with a royal message, which he was not permitted to deliver. The House probably never presented such a scene as that disgraceful one of the night of the 23rd of November. Mr. Denman stood with the Queen's letter in his hand; he was perfectly in order, but the Speaker chose rather to obey that brought by the usher of the black rod, summoning the members to attend at the bar of the Lords, and listen to the prorogation. The Speaker hurried out of the House, and the Queen's message was virtually flung into the street. The public, however, knew that its chief object was to announce the Queen's refusal of any allowance or accommodation made to her as by ministerial bounty. She still claimed the restoration of her name to the Liturgy, and a revenue becoming her recognised rank as Queen Consort.

In the mean time she publicly partook of the Holy Communion at the parish church of Hammersmith, a proceeding which some persons chose to consider as a new protestation of her innocence. The admirers of coincidences affected to have found a remarkable one in the first lesson for the day, on this occasion (Isaiah lix.); and particularly in the verse which declares that, "Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, for truth is fallen into the street, and equity cannot enter.' This was considered as applicable to the Queen's case, but as its applicability presented itself in a