Part 3 (1/2)

Paris at this period, it is evident, was scarcely in a less excitable state than London:--

HON. COLONEL STANHOPE TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.

Hotel Meurice, June 11, 1820.

MY DEAR LORD BUCKINGHAM,

Paris is in a strange state,--more resembling a town in a state of siege than the most gadding capital; but, as far as the exterior appearance can be the guide, I cannot see why the Government should have a.s.sembled nearly 25,000 troops round Paris, the riots having been confined to the students of the _ecoles_ and the _gardes de corps_, the people, _proprement dit_, taking no part and showing no interest. The violence of the Chambers is sufficiently seen in the papers, and their whole time is occupied in hearing different members relate their own adventures on the preceding day. The ultra-Ultras have returned to their foolish language, which ruined them in '14 and '15, about having a general tax to reimburse them for their lost property. They might as well think of dividing France. The other party, of course, keep pace. Two days ago, some French ladies on the Boulevards were obliged, by a body of men looking like _le bourgeoisie_, to get out of their carriages and cry ”_Vive l'egalite_.” One of the worst circ.u.mstances is the distinction which has been made between _Le Roi et la Charte_, which last year was the watchword of the Royalists, and is now divided into the _mots de ralliement_ of the two parties; and when the one cries _A bas la Charte_, others have been found rash enough to answer _A bas les Bourbons_. The Royalists are universally anxious for the double electoral colleges; their opponents will not give up the direct election; and the amendment which was carried the other day is a sort of _mezzo termine_, as the 170 new members are to be elected by the double colleges, and the _remplacants_ by the old law. There was a considerable riot on Friday night, in which Oudinot was rode over, and several people badly wounded; one only killed. The troops have shown the greatest steadiness, and evince rather an anxiety than an unwillingness to act. The Jacobins are, I am told, as much depressed by this as the Ultras are elated.

Madame de Flahaut is here, acting the French Lady J----; and to you I need say no more.

I am in a great fright about the Queen. What could make the Government employ Lord H----, who seems to have committed himself and employers most lamentably? She will, I fear, have a tremendous party of many well-disposed, good, moral men, as well as of all those who hate the King and the Government. If you have leisure, I should be very grateful for a word or two on this.

Ever affectionately yours,

J. W. STANHOPE.

The negotiation between the King's Ministers and the Queen's legal advisers was not rendered fruitless by any fault of the former.

Wilberforce acknowledges that ”The concessions made by the King's servants, as Mr. Brougham afterwards declared in the House of Commons, were various and great. The name and rights of a Queen were granted to her Majesty without reserve--any recognition of which had formerly been carefully avoided. A Royal yacht, a frigate, &c., were offered. It was agreed that her name and rank should be notified at the Court either of Rome or Milan, the capitals of the countries in which she had expressed her intention to reside; and that an address should be presented to the Queen, no less than another to the King, to thank her Majesty for having acceded to the wish of the House of Commons.”[23]

[23] ”Life,” vol. v. p. 56.

Wilberforce was very earnest, sending his son with a letter to the King, in which he entreated him to restore the Queen's name to the Liturgy,[24] and venturing to prophesy something very like a civil war should this concession be refused. On this point, however, his Majesty was intractable, and the negotiator met with anything but cordial co-operation from his own party, of whom he says: ”Opposition seem all disposed to take up the Queen's cause on party principles. Alas!”[25]

Subsequently he implies where he met with obstacles; ”Tierney, &c., ill-natured, yet Castlereagh gave way.”

[24] The Queen perpetrated one of her characteristic jests when this question was being furiously debated: ”The praying,” she observed, ”makes me very hungry, and when I am in the Liturgy I shall be famished.”

[25] Ibid. p. 58.

In a discussion on the subject in the House of Commons, he thus refers to the princ.i.p.al speakers: ”Burdett, violent and bitter, but very able; Tierney, mischievous; Denman, strong and straightforward; Brougham, able; Canning, clever, but not letting himself out.”

A deputation, of which Wilberforce was the head, proceeded from the House of Commons to the Queen, dressed in full Court costume; but her Majesty's turbulent admirers did not appreciate their good intentions, and they were roughly greeted by the mob. The reception they met with from the Queen was not much more courteous. Her answer was a refusal.

”Her manner was extremely dignified,” observes the princ.i.p.al negotiator, ”but very stern and haughty.” In a letter which he wrote at the time, he gives all the details of the question,[26] from which it is clear that the members of Government had agreed to resign their offices if the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy was carried against them in the House of Commons; and that, seeing the improbability of obtaining this demand, the Queen would have accepted an equivalent proposed by the Government, had not some sinister influence been exercised which brought about her refusal. Mr.

Wilberforce shared the general fate of peace-makers in getting terribly abused; but he evidently had the authority of the Queen's most able counsellor for the steps he took. ”She will accede to your address,” he wrote on the 22nd of June, ”I pledge myself.”[27]

[26] Letter to Samuel Roberts, Esq., ”Life,” vol. v. p. 62.

[27] Letter to Samuel Roberts, Esq., ”Life,” vol. v. p. 65.

Cobbett published a letter addressed to Mr. Wilberforce, made up of declamation and invective, in the style that then took the public taste. This composition is described as ”very clever, but very mischievous, and full of falsehoods.” He was attacked so frequently, and with such violence, by the Queen's partisans, that it forced him to exclaim, ”What a lesson it is to a man not to set his heart on low popularity, when, after forty years' disinterested public service, I am believed to be a perfect rascal!”[28]

[28] ”Wilberforce's Life,” vol. v. p. 68.

He complained bitterly of the conduct of the leaders of Opposition.

Their language to the Queen, especially that of Lord Grey, Mr. Tierney, and Sir Francis Burdett, was, ”Oh! you may be sure you never can be prosecuted,”--thereby, as he acknowledges, ”taking away what must doubtless have most powerfully enforced her consent. Then no sooner had she refused, and the prosecution goes forward, than they say, Government never should have admitted a compromise at all, but have prosecuted without hesitation.”[29]

[29] Ibid. p. 69.