For the preceding 18 years the princess of Zell had been a prisoner in Hanover, where she breathed her last, in the same dungeon in which she had so long dragged on a melancholy existence. She was never mentioned in any public document, nor on any public occasion, as the consort of the king; she was never recognised as queen; her name did not appear in any statepaper or address to the throne, and was not even to be found in the index to Tindal's History. This was not all. It was sufficiently established in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole, who was minister at the time, that George I. was actually divorced from his queen; and that what was called by German jurisconsults a left-handed marriage, had been solemnized between that monarch and the duchess of Kendal. This most wretched rag of a precedent, drawn from the case of an absentee a prisoner a person never recognized as queen, and whose conjugal relation with the king, had been dissolved by the decree of a court of judicature-such a precedent could never establish the legality of the conduct of ministers in the present case. The Attorney-general, on the other hand, contended, that the case of the queen of George I. was completely in point. The divorce mentioned by Coxe could not be a divorce actually annulling the marriage between the parties; for in the very same page of that writer's book it was stated, that the queen was gazetted as duchess of Zell, and duchess dowager of Hanover; and therefore, if the law was as imperative as Mr. Wetherell had represented it to be, she would have been entitled upon the accession of Geo. I. to have had her name inserted in the prayers of the church. He argued, that the queen and the royal progeny were placed by the act of Uniformity in the same situation; and that the insertion of the name of the former was not more obligatory on the sovereign, than was that of the latter. When the act passed, a distinct prayer for the king was specified in a schedule annexed to it, but none for the queen or the royal progeny. The words of the statute empowered the Crown to alter and change, and one mode of altering was by adding or omitting. Now, it was only necessary to refer to the form of prayer annexed to the act, to find a blank, which, unless by the power of adding and omitting, could never be supplied. Instances upon stances might be cited, in which, between the passing of the acts of Uniformity and the present day, omissions had taken place. It would be seen by the prayerbook used in the time of Philip and Mary, that a queen, not a queen consort, but a queen regnant, had been in that situation; for during that reign the king was prayed for, and the queen, though queen regnant, was not. The book was to be found in the British Museum: and the form stood "pro rege, et principibus suis." The name of Frederick prince of Wales had been struck out of the form of prayer. In the commencement of the late reign, the same measure had been adopted with respect to the duke of Cumberland. in In reply, sir James Macintosh observed, that with regard to the omission of the names of the prince of Wales and the duke of of life. Language so cold or neutral would not have been used in allusion to possible cases of delinquency, by men so distinguish and piety, as the authors of that measure. It was not even the change of persons which was provided for, but a change of names, "as fitted to the present occasion." Then, with regard to the words, "according to the direction of lawful authority," there could be no difficulty in pointing out their import. The alterations were hardly to be left to county or subordinate jurisdiction. Had the authority been so delegated, Charles, prince of Wales, Henry, duke of York, and the princess Clementina, might have been publicly prayed for seventy years ago, as, in point of fact, they had been in some parts of the kingdom. The very word "direction" had a peculiar signification: it was distinguished from command: that which was simply directory was not imperative; it related to matters of convenience and arrangement; "the lawful authority," beyond all doubts vesting in the king. Cumberland, in the year 1728, it was not a little remarkable that, in the year 1731, when Geo. II. and his eldest son were in open hostility, both names were re-ed for their learning, and wisdom, stored. Why was this done? or upon what supposition could it be explained, but that the omission was discovered to have been illegal? As to the omission of the duke of Cumberland's name at the commencement of the late reign, he had never meant to deny, that the words "royal progeny" must be understood with some limitation, and that it was for the lawful authority to judge how that limitation should apply. The whole progeny of the princess Sophia now consisted of several hundreds, the mention of some of whom might excite a smile in that House; for, in fact, amongst them were two young gentlemen of the name of Buonaparte. But could one instance in the year 1760 justify a proceeding directly contrary to law? The interpretation of the words employed in the act of Uniformity appeared to him plain and obvious, and to involve no legal subtilty whatever. The words were, "that the names of the king, queen, or royal progeny, be altered and changed from time to time." Now, did not the words "from time to time" exclude every notion of delinquency as a cause of such alteration? Was it possible to suppose, that the framers of that act would have been so grossly absurd as to refer to the subject of delinquency in these terms, and to talk of future acts of delinquency as necessarily occurring from time to time? No: what was meant was, the occurrence of events in the ordinary course of nature-of death or marriage, and the daily casualties Lord Castlereagh spoke near the end of the debate, and some remarks in which he indulged, called up Mr. Brougham. Neither of these gentlemen entered into the argumentative part of the question: but they, no doubt, gratified their respective partisans by the general declamation and political invective which they poured forth. The debate was prolonged till between six and seven in the morning. The result was, that 310 voted for the adjournment, and 209 against it; so that ministers had a majority of 101. "The Queen having learned, that the House of Commons has appointed this day for taking into consideration the part of the king's most gracious speech, which relates to her, deems it necessary to declare, that she is duly sensible of his majesty's condescension in recommending an arrangement respecting her to the attention of parliament. She is aware, that this recommendation must be understood as referring to a provision for the support of her estate and dignity; and, from what has lately passed, she is apprehensive that such a provision may be unaccompanied by the possession of her rights and privileges in the ample measure wherein former queens consort, her royal predecessors, have been wont, in times past, to enjoy them: "It is far from the Queen's inclination needlessly to throw obstacles in the way of a settlement, which she desires, in common with the whole country; and which, she feels persuaded, the best interests of all parties equally require; and being most anxious to avoid every thing that might create irritation, she cautiously abstains from any observation upon the unexampled predicament in which she is placed; but she feels it due to the House, and to herself, respectfully to declare, that she perseveres in the resolution of declining any arrangement while her name continues to be excluded from the Liturgy.Brandenburgh House, Jan. 31st, 1821." As soon as this message was read, Mr. Western opposed the motion for going into a committee, and moved an adjournment. The ground, which he and those who supported him took, was, that the innocence of the Queen ought to be acknowledged, before the public money was granted to her. A very keen debate followed, in which lord Castlereagh and Mr.Tierney took the principal share. If the House of Commons were disposed (said lord Castlereagh) to recognize the sovereign power assumed by her majesty, they would soon see in what manner she would exercise this novel control. She had said formerly, she would not accept any grant unless it came from parliament; now, when she saw it was about to be given by parliament, she said she would not take it, unless her name were restored to the Liturgy; and if that point were conceded, she would afterwards insist, as the terms of her acceptance of the grant, that she should have a palace, and participate in the coronation. short, she would never acquiesce in the tranquillity of the country, nor would she be satisfied, till the power and dignity of the crown were prostrate at her feet. In Mr. Western's motion for an adjournment was negatived without a division; and the House having gone into a committee of supply, lord Castlereagh moved that there should be granted to her majesty a sum not exceeding 50,000l. a-year for her life. Mr. Stuart Wortley was convinced, from the language used by her majesty, in some of her answers to addresses, and in her letter to the king, that it would not be safe to entrust her with the management of so large a sum: but, for the sake of promoting quiet, he consented not to press an amendment for giving her an annuity of less amount. Mr. H. Sumner then took up the course which Mr. Wortley had abandoned, and moved, that only 30,000l. per annum should be granted to her majesty but the original motion was carried without a division. The same question was again discussed on the following day, when the report of the committee was brought up. On the 5th of February the marquis of Tavistock brought forward a motion, which put completely in issue the justice and expediency of the general system of measures, which had been pursued towards the Queen. The motion was, "That it appears to this House, that his majesty's ministers in advising the measures which have led to the late proceedings against her majesty the Queen, were not justified by any political expediency or necessity; and that their conduct throughout the whole of those proceedings has been productive of consequences derogatory from the honour of the crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country." The debate on it lasted two nights. On the first night, Mr. Peel stood forth as the advocate of the ministry. He lamented that her majesty's name had been excluded from the Liturgy, that a palace had not been provided for her, that her demand of a ship of war had not been complied with; because circumstances like these, though in themselves trifles, gave rise to an impression on the minds of the multitude, that she was an object of persecution:-but he declared his concurrence in the general course of measures, which had been adopted. It had been impossible to allow the Queen, with such grave charges and suspicions hanging over her, to ascend the throne without a communication to parliament. "Where was the evil," it was asked, "of avoiding all proceedings?" What! was it no evil to place on the throne of England imputed adultery and guilt? To raise a Queen accused of gross licentiousness to the head of a female society, distinguished for the decencies which form the charm of life? Not only was the inquiry necessary-it was inevitable; and every attempt to evade it would have been ultimately ineffectual. Had every privilege been conceded to her, they who now fought her battles, would have been in arms against her; and the House would at that moment have been engaged in discussing the question, whether the government ought not to be impeached, for withholding the charges under which they knew her to labour. It was doubtless a misfortune, that the proceedings against her afforded a vile and degraded faction an opportunity of throwing much abuse and reproach upon illustrious and royal station. But this calamity was the neces sary result of a spirit of mischief availing itself of circumstances over which ministers had no control; and, whatever course might have been adopted by the government, would have come from the same quarter, though perhaps in a form somewhat different. They, who, when the Queen was recommended to them by being the object of a prosecution, had seized her arm to shake the throne, would have turned their venomous tongues against her, if she had been tranquilly admitted into the full enjoyment of regal splendor. They would have propagated and circulated every degrading insinuation, and would have asked, what respect was due to a throne, which could be so filled. Nothing less than the triumph of complete and unequivocal innocence would satisfy her majesty; and how could ministers allow her that triumph, convinced as they were that she was a guilty woman? Having shown by these reasonings, the necessity of taking some proceedings against her majesty, Mr. Peel then endeavoured to prove, by the same arguments as were employed in the House of Lords when the matter was before them, and which will be found in our former volume, that a bill of Pains and Penalties was the least objectionable course which could have been adopted. The debate on the second night was much more animated. Sir Robert Wilson, besides dilating on all the common-places of the question, produced a number of certificates from persons of rank and consideration in Italy, who declared, that they had seen no indecorum in the Queen's conduct; and Mr. H. G. Bennett said again what he had said twenty times before. Sir Francis Burdett took his ground with much skill. He stood up, not so much to eulogize the Queen, as to deprecate the mode in which she had been attacked, and, without endeavouring to prove her innocent, thought it enough if he could show, that no guilt had been established against her. He contended, that the policy which ministers had pursued with respect to her, was, from the beginning to the end, equally to be deplored. If they wished her to have staid abroad, they ought undoubtedly to have made it possible for her to do so; they ought not to have followed her with indignities and insults, which compelled her to return. The difficulties, which arose after her return, were all of their own creation; for had they but abstained from injuring and insulting her, she would have been an object of comparatively little notice. Her palace could have been filled only by disinterested courtiers, by the few who were to be found in castra ubi nulla potentia, and in a short time she would probably have been happy to have again gone abroad. Even if a prosecution was to be instituted against her, still as her alleged offence did not amount to high treason, as there was no intention of aiming at her life, and as the sole object was to show that she was unfit for her high station, this purpose might have been fully answered by a proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts. A single fact would then have been sufficient, and all that exposition of evidence which, if it had not produced immorality, had excited universal disgust, might have been avoided. The charges were of such a nature, that they ought never to have been uttered, unless there was a |