this proposal would seem to have been as illusory as those which had preceded it. But there was yet another artifice practised upon the Opposition leaders. Though Lord Moira had determined not to agree to any alteration in the household, Lord Hertford, Lord Yarmouth, and the other officers had resolved to resign their offices at court, should the Opposition undertake to form a government. But this imporant information was prevented, by court intrigues, from eaching the noble lords who were conducting the negotiations.1 They insisted upon the change in order to give “to a new government that character of efficiency and stability, and those marks of the constitutional support of the Crown, which were required to enable it to act usefully for the public service." Lord Moira rested his resistance to a claim, which, according to custom, could hardly have been opposed in any bona fide consultations, -on the ground that changes. in the household would give countenance to the imputations which had been thrown upon the court. It need hardly be said that his conduct produced the very result which he had professed his anxiety to avert.

animosity

The leaders of the Opposition were persuaded of the hollowness of all the proposals which had been made The regent's to them; and, knowing the hostility of the court, against the were as unwilling as their opponents, that these Whigs. overtures should lead to any result.2 Had they been less lofty and unbending, they might perhaps have overcome the obstacles which they dreaded. The regent had not the stub. born will of his royal father, and might have been won over o their side again, if they had once established themselves

1 Debates in Lords and Commons, 8th and 11th June, 1812; Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xxiii. 356, 397, 594, 606, and Appendix of Papers; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 425 ; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 214–220.

2 Debates in House of Lords, 3d, 5th, and 8th June, 1812; Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xxiii. 332-356, and App. xli.; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 216, 217; Life of Romilly, iii. 42; Horner's Memoirs, ii. 111, 311; Lord Grenville to the Marquess of Buckingham, June 6th and 9th, 1812; Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of Regency, i. 353, 377; Mr. T. Grenville. — Ibid., 354.

at court.

"He

So thought many of their disappointed followers: but the great lords judged otherwise, and proudly shrank from the ungracious task of combating the disfavor 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. told Lord Wellesley that he had 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

Reconstitution of the

ministry un

erpool.

8

These negotiations, meanwhile, had served their purpose. The old administration was immediately reconstituted, under the Earl of Liverpool; and when der Lord Liv- complaints were made, in the House of Commons, that a strong administration had not been formed in compliance with their address, the blame was thrown upon the impracticable leaders of the Opposition. The ministers. were now safe, and gained an easy triumph over Mr. Stuart Wortley and Lord Milton, who endeavored to unsettle the government, by further representations to the regent. Henceforth the ascendency of Tory politics, which George III. had established, and which the regent had Ascendency of Tory poli- 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.

tics.

1 Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of the Regency, i. 323.

2 Moore's Memoirs, by Lord John Russell, i. 360.

8 June 11th, Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xxiii. 397.

queen, 1820.

On his accession to the throne, he was dissatisfied with ministers for resisting his demands for a larger Proceedings civil list; but submitted to their judgment, and against the even, in his speech to Parliament, disclaimed any wish for an increased revenue.1 Soon afterwards his painful relations with the queen led to proceedings of which his ministers could not approve: but in which, with the honorable exception of Mr. Canning,2 — they were induced to support him. The king's personal feelings and honor 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.

1 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 363; Com. Journ., lxxv. 110.

2 See Stapleton's Life of Canning, 290-295, 315-323.

It was at

8 10th and 14th February, 1820; Stapleton's Life of Canning, 266, 279,

299.

4 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 368.

5 Debates in Lords and Commons, 1820, on the papers relating 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, unfavorable to the claim." - Duke of Buckingham's Memoirs of George IV., i. 109.

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. At 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 endeavored 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 hastened 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 recognize 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.2

And now the threat was carried out to the fullest extent, Conduct of by the introduction of a bill into the House of the ministers. Lords, to deprive her Majesty of her title, prerogatives, and rights, and to dissolve her marriage with the king. The 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, on one side only, — which may affect the monarchy itself."

1 Mr. C. Wynn to the Marquess of Buckingham. — Ibid., 116.

not

2 Debates, 19th June, 1820, when the failure of these negotiations was announced.

3 Twiss's Life of Eldon ii. 372

are too

But on the 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 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 honor, might have exposed them to the reproach of deserting their royal master in his utmost need, and even of siding with his hated consort:1 but a

1 Lord Brougham has attributed their conduct solely to an unworthy desire to retain their places (Works, iv. 33 ;) but perhaps the suggestion in the text is nearer the truth.