ment that can be suggested consistent with her diguity and honour.

"One o'clock, Friday,

9th June, 1820."

On the same evening lord Castlereagh moved in the Commons, that the consideration of the papers relating to the queen, should be postponed till Monday, and afterwards the following answer was transmitted to her majesty :

"Lord Liverpool has had the honour of receiving the queen's communication of this day; and begs leave to acquaint her majesty, that a memorandum delivered by lord Liverpool to Mr. Brougham on the 15th April last, contains the propositions, which lord Liverpool was commanded by the king to communicate through Mr. Brougham to her majesty.

"Her majesty has not been advised to return any answer to those propositions; but lord Liverpool assures her majesty, that the king's servants will still think it their duty, notwithstanding all that has passed, to receive for consideration any suggestions which her majesty or her advisers may have to offer upon those propositions.

"Fife-house, 9th June, 1820." Her majesty's reply was in these words:

"Her majesty does not consider the terms there specified as at all according with the condition upon which she informed lord Liverpool yesterday that she would entertain a proposal, namely, that it should be consistent with her dignity and honour. At the same time she is willing to acquit those who made this proposal, of intending any thing offensive to her majesty; and lord Liverpool's letter indicates a disposition to receive any suggestions which she may offer.

"Her majesty retains the same desire, which she commanded Mr. Brougham yesterday to express, of submitting her own wishes to the authority of parliament, now so decisively interposed. Still acting upon the same principle, she now commands Mr. Brougham to add, that she feels it necessary, before making any further proposal, to have it understood, that the recognition of her rank and privileges as queen, must be the basis of any arrangement which can be made. The moment that basis is established, her majesty will be ready to suggest a method by which she conceives all existing differences may be satisfactorily adjusted.

10th June, 1820."

This produced the following note from lord Liverpool :

"Lord Liverpool has had the honour of receiving the queen's communication, and cannot refrain from expressing the extreme surprise of the king's servants, that the memorandum of April 15th, the only proposition to her majesty, which ever was authorized by his majesty, should not have been sub

terday.

"That memorandum contains so full a communication of the intentions and views of the king's government with respect to the queen, as to have entitled his majesty's servants to an equally frank, full, and candid explanation on the part of her majesty's advisers.

"The memorandum of the 15th of April, while it proposed that her majesty should abstain from the exercise of the rights and privileges of queen with certain exceptions, did not call upon her majesty to renounce any of them.

"Whatever appertains to her majesty by law, as queen, must continue to appertain to her so long as it is not abrogated by

law.

"The king's servants, in expressing their readiness to receive the suggestion for a satisfactory adjustment which her majesty's advisers promise, think it right, in order to save time, distinctly to state, that any proposition which they could feel it to be consistent with their duty to recommend to his majesty, must have for its basis, her majesty's residence abroad.

"11th June, 1820."

The queen's answer was as follows:

"The queen commands Mr. Brougham to acknowledge having received lord Liverpool's note of last night, and to inform his lordship, that her majesty takes it for granted that the memorandum of April 15, was not submitted to her before Saturday, only because her legal advisers had no opportunity of seeing her ma

on the spot prepared to treat with her.

"Her majesty commands Mr. Brougham to state, that as the basis of her recognition as queen is admitted by the king's government, and as his majesty's servants express their readiness to receive any suggestion for a satisfactory adjustment, her majesty, still acting upon the same principles which have always guided her conduct, will now point out a method, by which it appears to her that the object in contemplation may be attained.

"Her majesty's dignity and honour being secured, she regards all other matters as of comparatively little importance, and is willing to leave every thing to the decision of any person or persons of high station and character, whom both parties may concur in naming, and who shall have authority to prescribe the particulars as to residence, patronage, and income, subject of course to the approbation of parliament.

"12th June, 1820."

To this communication the following answer was returned on the next day :

"Lord Liverpool has received the communication made by the queen's commands.

"The king's servants feel it to be unnecessary to enter into any discussion on the early parts of this communication, except to repeat that the memorandum delivered to Mr. Brougham of the 15th of April, contained the only proposition to the queen, which the king authorized to be made to her majesty.

"The views and sentiments of the king's government as to her

majesty's actual situation are sufficiently explained in lord Liverpool's note of the 11th instant.

"Lord Liverpool will proceed therefore to the proposal made on the part of her majesty at the close of this communication --viz. That she is willing to leave every thing to the decision of any person or persons of high station and character, whom both parties may concur in naming; and who shall have authority to prescribe the particulars as to residence, patronage, and income, subject of course to the approbation of parliament,'

"The king's confidential servants cannot think it consistent with their constitutional responsibility to advise the king to submit to any arbitration, a matter so deeply connected with the honour and dignity of his crown, and with the most important public interests; but they are fully sensible of the advantages which may be derived from an unreserved personal discussion; and they are, therefore, prepared to advise his majesty to appoint two of his majesty's confidential servants, who, in concert with the like number of persons to be named by the queen, may frame an arrangement to be submitted to his majesty, for settling, upon the basis of lord Liverpool's note of the 11th instant, the necessary particulars of her majesty's future

situation.

"13th June, 1820."

The result of this correspondence was, that the duke of Wellington and lord Castlereagh, on the part of the king, and Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, on behalf of her majesty, were named, for the purpose of discussing and settling the terms of

an arrangement. They met on the fifteenth of June.* They

• We subjoin the protocols containing the substance of what passed in these conferences, verbatim, as they were laid before parliament on the 19th of June: No. 1-Protocol of the First Conference held in St. James's-square, June 15th, 1820.

In pursuance of the notes of the 13th and 14th of June, the duke of Wellingof the king, having met Mr. Brougham ton and lord Castlereagh, on the part and Mr. Denman, her majesty's law officers, in order to facilitate the proposed personal discussions, it was suggested by the former:

1st. That the persons named to frame an arrangement, although representing different interests, should consider themselves, in discharge of this duty, not as opposed to each other, but as acting in concert with a view to frame an arrangement in compliance with the understood wish of parliament, which may avert the necessity of a public inquiry into the information laid before the two Houses.

2nd. The arrangement to be made must be of such a nature, as to require from neither party any concession as to the result to which such inquiry, if pronot be understood to admit, or the king ceeded on, might lead. The queen must to retract any thing.

3rd. That in order the better to accomplish the above important object, it was proposed, that whatever might pass neither party to any opinion; that noin the first conference should pledge thing should be recorded without previous communication, and, as far as possible, common consent; and that, in order to facilitate explanation and to encourage unreserved discussion, the substance only of what passed should be reported.

These preliminary points being agreed to, the questions to be examined (as contained in lord Liverpool's memorandum of the 15th April, 1820, delivered to Mr. Brougham previous to his proceeding to St. Omer, and in lord Liverpool's note of the 11th of June, of June, written by the queen's comand Mr. Brougham's note of the 12th mands) were:

Her majesty's law officers, on the part of the queen, desired, in the first instance, that the fourth point should be altogether laid aside in these conferences: her majesty desired it might make no part of the conditions, nor be mixed with the present discussions. They then proceeded to state, that under all the circumstances of her majesty's position, they would not say that her majesty had any insuperable objection to living abroad; on the contrary, if such foreign residence were deemed indispensable to the completion of an arrangement so much desired by parliament, her majesty might be prevailed upon to acquiesce; but, then, that certain steps must be taken to remove the possibility of any inference being drawn from such compliance, and from the inquiry not being proceeded in, unfavourable to her majesty's honour, and inconsistent with that recognition which is the basis of these negotiations; and her majesty's advisers suggested, with this view, the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. To this it was replied, that the king's government would no doubt learn with great surprise that a question of this important nature had now been brought forward for the first time, without having been adverted to in any of the previous discussions, and without being included amongst the heads to be now treated of; that the Liturgy had been already regulated by his majesty's formal declaration in council, and in the exercise of his majesty's legal authority; that the king, in yielding his own feelings and views to the wishes of parliament, could not be

the arrangement to be made must be of such a nature as to require from neither party any concession, as to the result to which such in

understood (in the absence of inquiry) to alter any of those impressions under which his majesty had hitherto deliberately and advisedly acted, and that, as it was at the outset stated, that the king could not be expected to retract any thing, no hope could be held out that the king's government would feel themselves justified in submitting such a proposition to his majesty.

To this it was answered, that although the point of the Liturgy was certainly not included by name amongst the heads to be discussed, her majesty's law officers felt themselves entitled to bring it forward in its connexion with the question of her majesty's residence abroad. It was further contended, that the alteration in the Liturgy was contrary to the plain sense and even letter of the statute, and that it was highly objectionable on constitutional grounds, being contrary to the whole policy of the law respecting the security of the succession, and liable to be repeated in cases where the succession itself might be endangered by it, and therefore it was said that a step so taken might well be retraced, without implying any unworthy concession. It was also urged, that the omission having been plainly made in contemplation of legal or parliamentary proceedings against her majesty, it followed when these proceedings were to be abandoned, that the omission should be supplied; and it followed for the same reason, that supplying it would imply no retractation.

It was replied, that his majesty had decided that her majesty's name should not be inserted in the Liturgy, for several reasons not now necessary to discuss ;that his majesty had acted under legal advice, and in conformity to the practice of his royal predecessors; and that the decision of his majesty had not been taken solely with a view to intended proceedings in parliament, or at law. Independent of the inquiry instituted before parliament his majesty had felt himself long since called upon to adopt certain measures, to which his majesty, as head of his family, and in the exercise of his prerogative, was clearly

quiry, if proceeded in, might lead. The queen was not to be understood to admit, nor the king to retract, any thing. Four dif

competent. These acts, together with that now under consideration, however reluctantly adopted, and however painful to his majesty's feelings, were taken upon grounds which the discontinuance of the inquiry before parliament could not affect, and which his majesty could not therefore be expected to rescind; the principle, fairly applied, would go in truth no further, than to replace the parties in the relative position in which they stood immediately before her majesty's arrival, and before the king's message was sent down to both Houses of Parliament.

After further discussion upon this point, it was agreed that the duke of Wellington and lord Castlereagh should report to the cabinet what had passed, and come prepared with their determination to the next conference. Her majesty's law officers then asked, whether, in the event of the above proposition not being adopted, any other proceeding could be suggested on the part of his majesty's government, which might render her majesty's residence abroad consistent with the recognition of her rights, and the vindication of her character; and they specially pointed at the official introduction of her majesty to foreign courts by the king's ministers abroad? Upon this it was observed, that this proposition appeared open to the same difficulty in point of principle: it was calling upon the king to retract the decision formally taken and avowed on the part of his majesty, a decision already notified to foreign courts, and to render the position of his majesty's representatives abroad, in relation to her majesty, inconsistent with that of their sovereign at home:that the purpose for which this was sought by the queen's advisers, was inconsistent with the principle admitted at the commencement of the conference, and was one that could not be reasonably required to be accomplished by the act of his majesty, namely, to give to her majesty's conduct that countenance, which the state of the case, as at present before his majesty, altogether precluded.

ferent points for discussion, were mentioned; but the first of these only was entered upon, and that related to the future residence of

At the same time it was stated, that while his majesty, consistently with the steps already adopted, could not authorize the public reception of the queen, or the introduction of her majesty at foreign courts by his ministers abroad, there was nevertheless every disposition to see that branch of the orders already given, faithfully and liberally executed, which enjoined the British ministers on the continent, to facilitate within their respective missions, her majesty's accommodation, and to contribute to her personal comfort and convenience.

Her majesty's law officers gave the king's servants no reason whatever to think that the queen could be induced to depart from the propositions above stated, unless some others, founded on the same principles, were acceded to on the part of his majesty's government. (Signed)

WELLINGTON. CASTLEREAGH. H. BROUGHAM. T.DENMAN.

No. 2.-PROTOCOL of the Second Conference, held at the Foreign Office, June 16th, 1820.

The king's servants began the conference by stating, that they had not failed to report with fidelity to the king's government, the proposition brought forward by her majesty's law officers, that the queen's name should be expressly included in the Liturgy, in order to protect her majesty against any misconstruction of the grounds on which her majesty might consent to reside abroad; that they were not deceived, for reasons already sufficiently explained, in anticipating the surprise of their colleagues, at the production of this question, for the first time, on the part of her majesty, more especially in the present advanced state of the proceedings.

That they were authorized distinctly to state, that the king's servants could on no account advise his majesty to rescind the decision already taken and acted upon in this instance; and that, to prevent misconception, the king's go