The Palace of Westminster, tho’ formerly noted for the Residence of the Kings, and now for the Assembly of the Parliament, is altogether plain. The Hall where the Royal Feast is celebrated on the Coronation-Day, is one of the largest in Europe.
The Room where the Lords meet, which is called the House of Peers, is not much ornamented, nor is the King’s Throne in it at all magnificent: They say, that a new Parliament-House is speedily to be erected; which is an Undertaking that deserves an able Hand to conduct it, the Parliament of Great Britain being, next to the Dyet of the Empire, the most august Body in the Universe.
When the King goes to meet his Parliament, ’tis with all the Splendor of Royalty, and he appears there with the Crown on his Head, dress’d in Royal Robes. His Throne is at the Bottom of the Room, whereas that of the King of France, when he holds his Courts of Justice, is plac’d in a Corner, with his Peers on each Side of him. But here the Prince of Wales alone, as Heir of the Crown, sits in the same Line with the King, and the Peers sit upon Benches by the Sides of the Room, and across it. I have not yet had the Honour to see his present Majesty in his Parliament; but I saw the late King his Father there; and I assure you, that the Sight of this august Assembly inspired me with such Sentiments of Respect, as I don’t know that I was ever impress’d with before. When I saw that King, the Best and most Just of Monarchs, come to give the Royal Assent to what the Peers of the Kingdom, or rather the Fathers of the People, had agreed to, I thought I saw Augustus in the Capitol approving the Decrees of the Senate, and the Senate applauding the Actions of the Emperor. Nevertheless the Parliament does not always applaud the King’s Measures; but on the contrary makes a noble Stand against them when they tend to incroach upon the public Liberty. ’Tis true, that since the late Revolution, which depriv’d the Stuart Family of the Throne, the Kings and their Parliaments have always agreed very well. Such is the Genius of the Nation, that a mild just King is sure of their Love and Respect, and he finds them as obedient to his Will, as a Tyrant King finds them reluctant. All that find Fault with the English for Disaffection to their Kings, have not duly read their History, or are fond of Slavery; and they who think a King of Great Britain is to be pity’d because he is not absolute, have a false Notion of kingly Power. A Monarch
of England is capable of doing as much Good as any King in the World; but he can do no Wrong. And what can a King, if he be an honest Man, (pardon me this Expression, ’tis a Character not unworthy of a King) desire more? What needs there more to satisfy his Ambition? And is it possible, that a Man can be pitied, because ’tis not in his Power to make Millions of People miserable? For my part, I think that the English, who do not stand up for their Laws and Liberties, are altogether as criminal, as they who oppose the Will of their Sovereign in a State where Arbitrary Power is once established.
What I admire in the English, is not only the Firmness with which they plead for their Rights, but their Manner of doing it. In other Nations we see Deputies from Parliaments or States makeing Remonstrances to their Sovereign, which are studied and concerted. An Englishman, on the contrary, makes his upon the Spot: He first hearkens attentively to what the Court Party has to propose, and if he finds it detrimental to the State, he opposes it solidly; not with Expressions that are flourish’d and far-fetch’d, but strongly represents the Inconveniencies of the Thing, and enforces what he says by the Quotation of Laws and Precedents. A true English Nobleman or Gentleman sacrifices every thing he has, for his Country: The Court and its Favours are not strong enough to captivate him: He can renounce both, when he thinks himself engaged in Honour to oppose the Court Measures in Parliament, and he lays down his Employments. A King has seldom the Pleasure of turning a Man out, and much less that of being solicited by the Person in Disgrace to restore him to Favour. An Englishman who should write such Letters as Bussi Rabutin wrote to Lewis XIV. would, I believe, be as much despised in
England, as Bussi was esteemed in France. They that are out of Favour, are not shunn’d here as they are elsewhere; and they are so far from being abandoned by their Friends, that a Nobleman has often a greater Levee in his Disgrace than he had when in Favour. At the same Time I can’t but think, that this Indifference for standing well or ill with the Court, is sometimes push’d too far. I have been told, a propos, that Queen Catharine of Portugal, Wife of Charles II. having forbad a certain Lady to come to Court, for having behav’d in a Manner that gave Offence, the Lady made her Answer, That she would obey her, and that she assured her Majesty, she would never give herself the Trouble to visit her again, ’till she could see her for Six-pence; by which she meant, when the Queen was dead, and exposed to View at Westminster.
His present Majesty having some Years ago forbad the D——ess of Q——y to come to Court, for some disrespectful Behaviour, the Duke who was that Lady’s Husband, and likewise disapproved her Conduct, immediately resign’d his Employment of V——e A——l of Sc——d, and absented himself from Court; but the D——ss and he were nevertheless seen as public Abroad as ever, and received abundance of Visits at Home. In short, a Man is only shunn’d here for being a Criminal, or a Coward.
There’s no King serv’d with greater Respect than a King of Great Britain: Even the Peers minister to him upon the Knee. His Family is very numerous; his Guards, which are spruce, form a considerable Body; his Court is always very much throng’d; and in short, he wants nothing of the Honours of Royalty. Since the late Revolution, a King is not accountable for any Thing he does; and the Ministers alone are culpable, and responsible