At the time when George IV commenced his reign, the recent proceedings
of the ministry, had inspired a small band of desperate men with the
design of assassinating the ministers at a cabinet dinner, and
thereafter attempting to set themselves up as a provisional
government. On the 23d of February 1820, they were suprised by the
police in their place of meeting, and, after a desperate resistance,
five were seized, among whom one Thistlewood was the chief. These
wretched men were tried for high treason, and executed. Nearly about
the same time, an attempt was made by the workmen in the west of
Scotland to bring about some alteration in the state; and two men were
executed.
On the accession of the king, his consort’s name had been omitted from
the liturgy. This and other indignities induced her to return from a
voluntary exile in Italy, June 1820, to the great embarrassment of the
king and his ministers. Her majesty, who had long been befriended by
the Opposition, was received by the people with the warmest
expressions of sympathy. Whatever had been blameable in her conduct
was overlooked, on account of the greater licentiousness of life
ascribed to her husband, and the persecution which she had suffered
for twenty-four years. The king, who had established a system of
observation round her majesty during her absence from the country,
caused a bill of pains and penalties against her to be brought (July
6) into the House of Lords, which thus became a court for her trial.
Messrs Brougham and Denman, who afterwards attained high judicial
stations, acted as counsel for her majesty, and displayed great
dexterity and eloquence in her defense. The examination of witnesses
occupied several weeks; and nothing was left undone which might
promise to confirm her majesty’s guilt. But no evidence of criminality
could soften the indignation with which almost all classes of the
community regarded this prosecution. Though the bill was read a second
time by a majority of 28 in a house of 218, and a third time by 108
against 99, the government considered it expedient to abandon it,
leaving the queen and her partisans triumphant.
In July 1821, the coronation of George IV took place under
circumstances of great splendor. On this occasion, the queen made an
attempt to enter Westminster Abby, for the purpose of witnessing the
ceremony, but was repelled by the military officers who guarded the
door; an insult which gave such a shock to her health as to cause her
death in a few days.
From the year 1805, the Catholic claims had been a prominent subject
of parliamentary discussion, and since 1821 they had been sanctioned
by a majority in the House of Commons. Almost despairing of their
cause, while left to the progress of mere opinion in the English
aristocracy, the Irish Catholics had in 1824 united themselves in an
Association, with the scarcely concealed purpose of forcing their
emancipation by means of a terrifying exhibition of their physical
strength. An act was quickly passed for the suppression of this
powerful body; but it immediately reäppeared in a new shape. In fact,
the impatience of the Catholic population of Ireland under the
disabilities and degradation to which they were subjected on account
of religion, was evidently becoming so very great, that there could be
little hope of either peace or public order in that country till their
demands were conceded. Though the English public lent little weight to
the agitation, and the king was decidedly hostile to its object,
Catholic emancipation rapidly acquired importance with all classes,
and in all parts of the empire. In the spring of 1828, a kind of
preparation was made for the concession, by the repeal of the test and
corporation oaths, imposed in the reign of Charles II.
The ministry soon after received an alarming proof of the growing
force of the question. Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald had vacated his seat for
the county of Clare, on becoming president of the Board of Trade. He
was a friend to emancipation, and possessed great influence in the
county; but he was also a member of an anti-Catholic administration.
As an expedient for annoying the ministry, the Catholic Association,
and all the local influences on that side, were set in motion to
procure the return of Mr. Daniel O’Connell, the most distinguished
orator of the Catholic party. To the surprise of the nation, Mr.
O’Connell was returned by a great majority. It was even surmised that
the laws for the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament would be
unable to prevent him from taking his seat. The Duke of Wellington now
began to see the necessity of taking steps towards a settlement of
this agitating question; and the first, and most difficult, was to
overcome the scruples of the sovereign. At the opening of the session
of 1829, in consequence of a recommendation from the throne, bills
were introduced by ministers for removing the civil disabilities of
Catholics, and putting down the Catholic Association in Ireland; and
notwithstanding a great popular opposition, as well as the most
powerful exertions of the older and more rigid class of Tories, this
measure was carried by a majority of 353 against 180 in the House of
Commons, and by 217 to 112 in the House of Lords.