§ No. 1.—Protocol of the First Conference held in St. James's-square, June l5th, 1830.
§ In pursuance of the notes of the, 13th and 14th of June, the duke of Wellington and lord Castlereagh, on the part of the king, having met Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, her majesty's law officers in order to facilitate 1152 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 proceeded en, might lead. The queen must not be understood to admit, or the king to retract any thing.
§ 3rd. That in order the better to accomplish the above important object, it was proposed, that whatever might pass in the first conference should pledge neither party to any opinion; that nothing 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's, and in lord Liverpool's note of the 11th of June, and Mr. Brougham's note of the 12th of June, written by the queen's commands) were:
- 1st. The future residence of the queen abroad.
- 2nd. The title which her majesty might think fit to assume when travelling on the Continent;
- 3rd. The non-exercise of certain rights of patronage in England, which it might be desirable that her majesty might desist from exercising, should she reside abroad; and,
- 4th. The suitable income to be assigned for life to the queen residing abroad.
§ 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 1153 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 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 I 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, a9 head of his family, and in the exercise of his prerogative, was clearly 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 dis- 1154 continuance 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.
§ At the same time it was stated, that while his majesty, consistently with the steps already adopted, could not authorise 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.
1155§ 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 authorised 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 government had charged the duke of Wellington and lord Castlereagh to explain, that they must equally decline to advise the king to depart from the principle already laid down by his majesty for the direction of his representatives abroad, with regard to the public reception by the king's ministers abroad, and introduction, of her majesty at foreign courts, but that they were not only ready, but desirous, to guard in future, by renewed orders, against any possible want of attention to her majesty's comfort or convenience, by his majesty's ministers abroad; and that wherever her majesty might think fit to establish her residence, every endeavour would be made to secure for her majesty from that state, the fullest protection, and the utmost personal comfort, attention and convenience.
§ In explanation of the position in which the king actually stood upon this question in his foreign relations, the instructions under which the ministers abroad now acted were communicated to the queen's law officers, and their attention was directed, as well to the principles therein laid down, and from which his majesty could not be called upon to depart, as to that branch of the instructions which was studiously framed to provide for the personal comfort and convenience of the queen, when princess of Wales.
§ The queen's law officers then stated, that they must not be understood to suggest the giving of a general power to her majesty to establish her court in any foreign country, and to be there received and presented by the English minister, because reasons of state might render it inexpedient, that under certain circumstances such an establishment should be made; but they wished that her majesty should have the power of being so received and treated by the English minister, where no such reasons of state interfered; and they 1156 inquired, whether the same objection would exist to the public introduction of her majesty at some one court where she might fix her residence, if she waived the claim of introduction at foreign courts generally.
§ To this it was answered, that the principle was in fact the same whether at one or more courts, and that if the king could be consistently advised to meet the queen's wishes in this instance at all, it would be more dignified for his majesty to do so generally and avowedly, than to adopt any partial or covert proceeding. The queen's law officers, referring to the decision of the judges in George the first's reign, said it would be a much more unexceptionable exercise of the royal prerogative, were the king even to prescribe where her majesty should reside, but to order her there to be treated as queen by his minister.
§ The king's servants, in consequence of what had passed at a former conference, then reverted to the mode in which the queen had arrived in England, and the pain her majesty must experience, were she exposed to leave England in the like manner.
§ They acquainted her majesty's law officers, that they could venture to assure them, that the difficulty would not occur.
§ The queen arrived in England contrary to the king's wishes and representations, but were her majesty now to desire to pass to the continent, whether to a port in the channel, or if it should more accord with her majesty's views, to proceed at once to the Mediterranean, a king's yacht in the one instance, or a ship of war in the other, might be ordered to convey her majesty.
§ After receiving these explanations, the queen's law officers recurred to the points before touched upon, viz. the inserting the queen's name in the liturgy, or the devising something in the nature of an equivalent, and intimated their conviction, that her majesty would feel it necessary to press one or both of those objects, or some other of a similar nature and tendency.
§ They then asked, whether a residence in one of the royal palaces would be secured to her majesty, while in this country; and observed that her majesty had never been deprived of her apartments in Kensington-palace, until she voluntarily gave them up for the accommodation of the late duke of Kent?
§ It was replied, that the king's servants bad no instructions on this point. They however observed, that they believed the apartments which her majesty formerly occupied, when princess of Wales, were at present actually in the possession of the duchess of Kent, and that they considered that this point had been already disposed of, by supplying to her majesty the funds which were necessary to furnish her majesty with a suitable residence.
§ Her majesty's law officers then inquired, whether, supposing an arrangement made, the mode of winding up the transaction, and 1157 withdrawing the information referred to parliament had been considered, and whether the king's servants saw any objection, in the present instance, to the Houses of Parliament expressing, by suitable addresses both to the king and queen, their grateful thanks for their majesties having acquiesced in an arrangement, by which parliament had been saved the painful duty of so delicate and difficult a proceeding?
§ The king's servants acknowledged this point had not been considered; but reserved to themselves to report the observations made thereupon to their colleagues.
§ It was then agreed that, upon every view of duty and propriety, the final decision should not be protracted beyond Monday, to which day it should be proposed that the proceedings on the king's message in the House of Commons should be adjourned, on a distinct explanation to this effect; and that a conference should take place to-morrow, in order to bring the business to a conclusion, and to arrange, by mutual consent, the Protocols of conference.
§ (Signed) WELLINGTON.
§ CASTLEREAGH.
§ H. BROUGHAM.
§ T. DESMAN.
§ No. 3.—PROTOCOL of the third conference, held at the foreign office, June 17, 1820.
§ The conference was opened by her majesty's law officers intimating, that, adverting to what had passed in the preceding conference, they had nothing to propose, but to proceed to the adjustment of the protocol.
§ The king's servants stating, that, before they entered into this business of arranging the protocol, they thought it their duty to advert 10 the points discussed in the preceding conference, upon which no explicit opinion had been expressed by then) on the part of his majesty's government; they then declared, that they were authorized to inform the queen's law officers, that, in the event of tier majesty's going to the continent, a yacht or ship of war would be provided for the conveyance of her majesty, cither to a port in the channel, or to a port in the Mediterranean, as her majesty might prefer.
§ That every personal attention and respect would be paid by the king's servants abroad to her majesty, and every endeavour made by them to protect her majesty against any possible inconvenience, whether in her travels or residing on the continent,—with the understood reserve, however, of public reception by the king's ministers abroad, and introduction at foreign courts.
§ It was further stated by the king's servants, that having weighed the suggestion communicated by the queen's law officers in the preceding conference, they were now prepared to declare, that they saw no difficulty (if the terms in which the same were to be conveyed were properly guarded) to a proposition being 1158 made to both Houses, for expressing, by address to the queen as well as to the king, their grateful acknowledgments for the facilities which their majesties might have respectively afforded, towards the accomplishment of an arrangement, by which parliament had been saved the necessity of so painful a discussion.
§ These observations not appearing to make any material difference in the views taken by her majesty's law officers of the result of the conferences, it was agreed to proceed in the arrangement of the protocols.
§ Before however the protocol was discussed, the king's servants desired distinctly to know from her majesty's law officers, whether the introduction of the queen's name in the liturgy, and her majesty's introduction at foreign courts, were either of them, a condition sine, quâ non of an arrangement on the part of the queen? to which it was replied, that either the introduction of her majesty's name in the liturgy, an equivalent, which would have the effect of protecting her majesty against the un-favourable inference to which her majesty might be liable in leaving the country under the circumstances in which her majesty was placed, was a sine quâ non. The queen could not be advised voluntarily to consent to any arrangement which was not satisfactory to her majesty's own feelings, however her majesty, with a view to meet the understood wishes of parliament, had felt it her duty to propose to leave the whole question to an arbitration.
§ No proposition on the part of her majesty, other than those already adverted to, was brought forward.
§ (Signed) WELLINGTON.
§ CASTLEREAGH.
§ H. BROUGHAM.
§ T. DENMAN.
§ No. 4.—PROTOCOL of the fourth conference, held at St. James's-square, 18th June, 1820.
§ Before proceeding to finish the discussion of the protocols, it was suggested on the part of the king's servants, if possible to meet the queen's wishes, and in order the better to assure to her majesty every suitable respect and attention within the particular state in which she might think fit to establish her residence (the Milanese or the Roman States having been previously suggested by her majesty's law officers, as the alternative within her majesty's contemplation) that the king would cause official notification to be made of her majesty's legal character as queen, to the government of such state.—That consistently however with the reasons already stated, it must rest with the sovereign of such state, what reception should be given to her majesty in that character.
§ The king's servants were particularly anxious to impress upon the queen's law officers the public grounds upon which this principle rested.
1159§ The general rule of foreign courts is, to receive only those who are received at home.
§ The king could not with propriety require any point, of foreign governments, the refusal of which would not afford his majesty just grounds of resentment or remonstrance.
§ It would he neither for the king's dignity nor for the queen's comfort, that she should be made the subject of such a question.
§ To this it was replied, for the queen, that with respect to this new proposition on the part of the king's servants, it should be taken into immediate consideration; but her majesty's law officers observed, that her majesty was not in the situation referred to in the above reasoning, having been habitually received at court in this country for many years, and having only ceased to go there in 1814, out of regard to the peculiarly delicate situation in which the unfortunate differences in the royal family placed the late queen.
§ The latter observation was met, on the part of the king's servants, by a re-assertion of his majesty's undoubted authority on this point, whether as king, or as Prince Regent in the exercise of the royal authority; that the court held by her late majesty was in fact the court of the Prince Regent, then acting in the name and on the behalf of his late majesty, and that the present queen, then princess of Wales, was excluded from such court.
§ (Signed) WELLINGTON.
§ CASTLEREAGH.
§ H. BROUGHAM.
§ T. DENMAN.
§ No. 5.—PROTOCOL of the fifth conference, held at the foreign office, June 19th, 1820.
§ The protocols of the preceding conferences were read, and agreed upon.
§ Her majesty's law officers stated, that the proposition of yesterday had been submitted to her majesty, and that it had not produced any alteration in her majesty's sentiments.
§ In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the expression used on mentioning their belief that her majesty might overcome her reluctance to go abroad, viz. "under all the circumstances of her position," they stated, that they meant thereby, the unhappy domestic differences which created the difficulty of her majesty holding a court, and the understood sense of parliament, that her majesty's residence in this country might be attended with public inconvenience.
§ They also protested generally, in her majesty's name, against being understood to propose or to desire any terms inconsistent with the honour and dignity of the king, or any which her own vindication did not seem to render absolutely necessary.