On the 6th of August, her royal highness the Duchess of York died. Up to a very late hour of the day on which this occurred, no official communication had been made to the queen; but, in consequence of the event, her majesty requested to postpone several addresses which she had previously appointed to receive.

On the 7th, the queen sent a letter to the king, but it was returned from Windsor unopened, with a communication that "Such a letter addressed to the king cannot be received by his majesty, unless it

[[355]]passes through the hands of his minister." Why, after the refusal to receive this letter, should the princess be blamed for permitting its contents to be published? If the king were under obligations of such a description as to incapacitate him from exercising his own judgment, and giving his own opinion, was he fit to administer the laws, or ought he to have sanctioned the appeal of miscreants who sought their own, and not their country's, good? Let us consider the delays attending this letter. It was sent to Windsor, directed expressly for the king, accompanied with a note, written by the queen, to Sir B. Bloomfield, desiring it might be immediately delivered into the king's hand. Sir B. Bloomfield was absent, and Sir W. Keppell, as the next in command, received it, and forwarded the same to Sir B. Bloomfield, at Carlton House, immediately, who returned the letter on the 8th to her majesty, saying, "I have received the king's commands and general instructions, that any communications which may be made should pass through the hands of his majesty's government." The queen immediately despatched a letter to Lord Liverpool, enclosing the one she had addressed to the king, by the hands of a messenger, in which her majesty desired the earl to present it. Lord Liverpool was then at Coombe Wood, and wrote in reply, that he would "lose no time in laying it before his majesty." Up to the 11th, no reply had been received; and the queen wrote to Lord Liverpool again, to know if further communication were needful. Lord Liverpool replied, that he had not

[[356]]received the king's commands upon the subject, and therefore could not give any positive answer relative to it. How does this strange and incomprehensible conduct appear to any unbiassed Englishman? Was the king, who ought to be the dispenser of the laws, to be free from imputation, when he thus exposed his unrelenting temper and unbending determination, wherever his private inclinations were concerned? We dare avow, if that letter could have been answered, it would; but its contents were unanswerable! "Aye," said the hireling Castlereagh, "it is no matter what the conduct of the Princess of Wales has been; it is the king's desire that he may no more be obliged to recognise her in her former character of Princess of Wales." Oh! most sapient speech of a most sapient lord; truly this was a bold doctrine to broach, that kings have a right divine to subdue, injure, oppress, and govern wrong!

We pass by the number of addresses presented to her majesty at this period, and also the not-to-be-mistaken expression of public opinion against the projector of her injuries. Were they not concocted by the authority of the monarch, her husband? Was it not by his divine decree that his consort's name was erased from the liturgy? Did he not send down to parliament that message which denounced his queen a criminal? Yet, after all this, Lord Liverpool said, "The king has no personal feeling upon the subject." Very true, his majesty could not have any personal feeling towards the queen; his royal feelings had always been confined to the libidinous

[[357]]and the most obnoxious of society! Had he been a worthy and upright plaintiff against the most unfortunate of defendants, would he have scrupled to have shewn himself in his regal chair upon the continued debates arising from this most important question; and would not a sense of greatness and virtue, had he possessed either, after hearing the infamous statements of false witnesses, have influenced him to decline further proceedings, though his pride might have withheld an acknowledgment of error? This line of honest conduct was not followed, and we are therefore obliged to brand him as one of the most despicable and mean of the human race!

During the disgraceful proceedings against the queen, such was the public feeling in her favour, that the peers actually feared for their personal safety in going to and returning from the House. This threatened danger was, as might be expected, properly guarded against by the military, who poured into London and its environs in vast numbers. The agitated state of the public mind probably was never more decidedly expressed than on the 19th of August, the day on which the trial commenced. At a very early hour in the morning, workmen were employed in forming double rows of strong timber from St. Margaret's church to the King's Bench office on the one side, and from the upper extremity of Abingdon-street on the other, so as to enclose the whole area in front of the House of Lords. This was done to form a passage to the House, which was devoted exclusively for the carriages of the peers, to and from the principal entrance. Within this extensive

[[358]]area, a large body of constables were stationed, under the controul of the high bailiff and high constable, who were in attendance before seven o'clock. A very strong body of foot-guards were also posted in the King's Bench office, the Record office, and in the other apartments, near or fronting the street. Westminster Hall was likewise appropriated to the accommodation of the military. All the leading passages from St. Margaret's church into Parliament-street were closed securely by strong partitions of timber. The police-hulk and the gun-boats defended the river side of Westminster, and the civil and military arrangements presented an effectual barrier on the opposite side. At nine o'clock, a troop of life-guards rode into the palace yard, and formed in line in front of the principal gate of Westminster Hall; they were shortly afterwards followed by a detachment of the foot-guards, who were formed under the piazzas of the House of Lords, where they piled their arms. Patrols of life-guards were then thrown forward, in the direction of Abingdon-street, who occasionally formed near the king's entrance, and at intervals paraded.

At half-past nine, a body of the Surrey horse-patrol rode over Westminster-bridge, and for a short time paraded Parliament-street, Whitehall, and Charing-cross; they afterwards drew up near the barrier at St. Margaret's church. The peers began to arrive shortly afterwards; the lord chancellor was in the House before eight o'clock. The other ministers were equally early in their attendance.

At a quarter before ten, an universal cheering from