The preparations within the Hall have on former occasions been fully
described, and a tolerably correct notion may be formed by many of the
main outlines of the arrangements there, to give effect to the
ceremonies preceding, and the banquet following, his Majesty's
coronation. The _coup d'oeil_ was of the most pleasing and imposing
character; the galleries along each side of the Hall, the tower and
turrets over the grand entrance, and the royal platform and table, were
finished in the highest order. The new windows in the roof, and the
recently-completed lantern upwards of forty feet high on the centre of
the ridge of the roof, with glazed windows all round, greatly improved
the effect.
From each side of the angles formed by the ends of the hammer-beams in
the roof was suspended by a gilt chain a large splendid cut-glass
lustre, with broad ornamented gilt irons and frames, containing three
circles of wax candles, being between forty and fifty in each lustre.
The first and second galleries had the mattings and scarlet coverings
completed only on Wednesday. The royal box on the right, and the
foreigners' box on the left side of the royal table were entirely lined
with scarlet cloth, festooned in front, and ornamented with gold fringe.
The throne, seat, and the royal table, attracted general admiration.
With the exception of the large fluted columns, the royal seat and
canopy were in the style of the throne in the House of Lords. The back
of crimson velvet, with the royal arms embroidered on it, and the limits
decorated with gold and ornaments. The canopy was square, with a raised
and variegated gold cornice round. The centre displayed a splendid
crown, underneath which were G. R. IV. Underneath the cornice was a
crimson velvet vallance, separated into divisions, the lower portion of
each division being rounded with gold, while its centre was decorated
with gold, embroidered, and raised ornaments illustrative of the
military orders, and of the emblems of the United Kingdom, the Rose, the
Thistle, the Harp, &c. The chair was equally splendid; the arms and legs
consisting of rich carved work gilt, with crimson velvet back, also
ornamented. The only objection in point of taste that can be made to
this is, that the glitter did not harmonize with the sober grandeur of
the Hall.
About nine o'clock on Wednesday night the King left Carlton Palace for
the house of the speaker of the House of Commons in Palace Yard, where
his Majesty slept on Wednesday night. His Majesty's coach was escorted
by a strong detachment of the Oxford Blues, accoutred as cuirassiers.
They made a most beautiful appearance. The carriage drove at a rapid
rate across the Parade in St. James's Park, through Storey's Gate and
Great George Street. His Majesty was recognised by the crowd on his
passage, and saluted with every expression of loyalty and attachment.
Prior to the departure of his Majesty from Carlton Palace the crowd
between Storey's Gate and Westminster Hall had been cleared by the Scots
Greys, so as to make a convenient passage for the carriage, and his
Majesty did not set out until after an officer had arrived at the Palace
gate to announce that all was ready. His Majesty was guarded through the
night by the lord great chamberlain and the usher of the black rod.
There were no preparations of importance. His Majesty's sofa bed was
brought from Carlton House. On Thursday morning the lord great
chamberlain, at seven o'clock, carried to his Majesty his shirt and
apparel, and with the lord chamberlain of the household dressed his
Majesty. His Majesty then breakfasted, and afterwards proceeded to his
chamber, near the south entrance into Westminster Hall.
We entered the Hall at twenty minutes past five o'clock, and a crowd of
ladies admitted by peers' orders, and peeresses, were then struggling
for admittance.
The first thing we observed on having entered the Hall, was the canopy
which was to be borne over the King by the barons of the Cinque Ports.
The canopy was yellow;--of silk and gold embroidery, with short curtains
of muslin spangled with gold. Eight bearers having fixed the poles by
which the canopy was supported, which were of steel (apparently), with
silver knobs, bore it up and down the Hall, to practise the mode of
carrying it in procession. It was then deposited at the upper end of the
side table of the Hall, to the left of the throne. The canopy was not
very elegant in form, and did not seem very well calculated to add to
the effect of the procession. But even at this early hour the
appearance of the Hall, studded with groups of gentlemen pensioners, and
various other attendants, in their fantastic and antique costumes, with
the officers of the guards, and others, in military uniform, and, above
all, the elegantly dressed women who began to fill the galleries, was
altogether superb. At this time there were several hundreds of
spectators in the Hall.
The sides of the upper end of the Hall, including the boxes for the
foreign ministers and royal family, were hung with scarlet cloth, edged
with gold.
The throne was splendid with gold and crimson; the canopy over the
throne was of crimson and gold, with the royal arms in embroidery. The
large square table before the throne, intended for the display of the
regalia, was of purple, having a rim of gold, and an interior square
moulding of the same description, about two feet from the edge. The
platform on which the throne was placed, and the three steps immediately
descending from it, were covered with brown carpeting; the two other
descending flights of steps, and the double chairs, placed by the side
of the tables for the peers (with the names of their future occupiers),
and the coverings of the railings in front of the seats, were of morone
cloth. From the bottom of the steps, descending from the throne to the
north gate, the middle of the floor of the Hall was covered with blue
cloth, in the same manner as the platform without. The rest of the floor
and the seats were matted. The side tables were covered with green
cloth; and as on each side, the galleries reached nearly to the top of
the windows in the wall, only the upper arches of those windows, and the
noble roof of the old fabric appeared, except at each end, the upper one
especially, where the grave visages of the Saxon kings, newly decorated,
made their appearance. The light, which was only admitted from the roof
windows, and from those in each end, though sober, was, on the whole,
good. At the lower end the attendants of the earl marshal attracted some
notice by their dark dresses, with white sashes, stockings, shoes with
large rosettes, and Queen Elizabeth ruffs, with gilt staves tipped with
black. At a quarter after seven o'clock an attendant, habited in the
dress of _Henri Quatre_ laid on the table, near the canopy, eight maces,
to be borne in the course of the procession.
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester was the first of the royal
family who arrived in the Hall; taking her seat in the royal box at a
quarter before six. Her Royal Highness was splendidly attired in a rich
dress of silver lama over French lilac; head-dress, a white satin hat,
with an elegant plume of white feathers, turned up with a diamond button
and loop in front; and appeared to be in excellent health and spirits.
Soon afterwards the Duchess of Clarence entered the Hall, and took her
seat next to her royal sister-in-law, the Duchess of Gloucester. About
half past seven their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Kent, the Princess
Sophia of Gloucester, and the Princess Feodore (daughter of the Duchess
of Kent) took their seats in the royal box. Their Royal Highnesses were
attired in splendid dresses of white satin, richly embroidered in
silver, with rich bandeau head-dresses, and large plumes of white
feathers.
The herb-women entered the Hall from the south end before eight o'clock.
Miss Fellowes, the principal herb-woman, was led in by Mr. Fellowes; and
the six young ladies, her assistants, followed two and two. They were
afterwards seated at the north entrance of the Hall. They were elegantly
dressed in white, tastefully decorated with flowers. Miss Fellowes wore,
in addition to the same dress, a scarlet mantle. At eight o'clock three
large baskets were brought into the Hall, filled with flowers, for them
to bear. Of a very different description from these were some persons
who were observed in various parts of the Hall. These were well-known
prize-fighters, who were stationed from an idea of the necessity of
keeping peace among the honourable and noble throng. We observed Cribb,
Randall, Richmond, and we understood many others were present.
The canopy was removed at eight o'clock from the side table where it had
been placed, and was brought into the middle of the Hall. The barons of
the Cinque Ports were then marshalled, two to each pole; they then bore
the canopy down the Hall by way of practice, according to a word of
command.--Some laughter was at first excited by the irregular manner in
which the bearers moved. Their dresses were, however, extremely
splendid--large cloaks of garter-blue satin, with slashed arms of
scarlet, and stockings of dead red.
Many peers had been occasionally in the Hall at a very early hour in the
morning, and before eight o'clock they had all arrived at the buildings
near the House of Lords, and took their coronets and robes. The
archbishops and bishops assembled about the same time, and vested
themselves in their rochets, in the House of Lords and chambers
adjacent. The judges, and others of the long robe, together with the
gentlemen of the privy chamber, esquires of the body, serjeants at law,
masters in chancery, aldermen of London, chaplains having dignities, and
six clerks in chancery, being all in their proper habits, assembled at
the places, of which notice has been given, where the officers of arms
arranged them according to their respective classes, four in a rank,
placing the youngest on the left, and then conducted them into the Hall.
The King's serjeants were in red gowns. The masters in chancery (nine of
whom attended) were in the dress in which they attend the house of
lords.
The barons of the Cinque Ports took a second turn in the Hall, which, as
it began with more formality, was attended with more laughter than the
first. About this time also the four swords were brought in, and
deposited on the end of the left hand table, with the spurs, and a
cushion for the crown. The knights of the Bath now began to assemble,
and with the others who were to take part in the procession, were ranged
at the end of the Hall. The dresses of the knights of the Bath were
extremely splendid, but somewhat gaudy. The knights had all close
dresses of white satin, puckered in a variety of ways. The grand crosses
wore flowing robes of pinkish red satin, lined with white; the
commanders small mantles. The judges and privy counsellors, not being
peers, next entered; the latter in splendid dresses of blue velvet and
gold.
Among them were the Earl of Yarmouth, Lord Binning, Mr. Canning, Mr.
Bathurst, Mr. Huskisson, Sir G. Hill, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Beckett, Lord G.
Beresford, and Mr. Wallace.
The barons then entered, Lords Stowell and Maryborough (late Sir W.
Scott and W. W. Pole), being among the first. There were but forty-nine
(if we rightly counted them) present. Next came the bishops--fifteen
attended; the viscounts, nineteen in number. The earls were more
numerous--we should think seventy or eighty; but the Hall now became so
crowded that there was a difficulty in counting them accurately. The
marquesses and dukes, and lastly the great officers of state,
archbishops, and members of the royal family, entered. Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Cobourg was in the full robes of the order of the Garter. The
princes of the blood and some of the dukes placed themselves on the
right of the platform about the throne. The marquesses and some of the
earls on the left side, formed a line with those who had descended to
the floor of the Hall. The show of ermine and velvet on the descent of
the platform was of the most magnificent description.
A herald then went through the line of peers, marshalling each according
to the order of their creation--the junior first. They were a second
time called over, and ranged in a double file on each side of the middle
space of the Hall by Mr. Mash.
Before the King entered, the peers were all ranged on each side of the
Hall, none being left on the platform but the great officers of state
and the royal family.
Precisely at ten o'clock the King entered the Hall from the door behind
the throne, habited in robes of enormous size and richness, wearing a
black hat with a monstrous plume of ostrich feathers, out of the midst
of which rose a black heron's plume. His Majesty seemed very much
oppressed with the weight of his robes. The train was of enormous length
and breadth. It was of crimson velvet adorned with large golden stars,
and a broad golden border. His Majesty frequently wiped his face while
he remained seated. He went through the ceremonies, which we have
described, with much spirit and apparent good humour. In descending the
steps of the platform his Majesty seemed very feeble, and requested the
aid and support of an officer who was near him. Instead of standing
under the canopy, his Majesty, perhaps afraid of the awkwardness of the
barons, preceded it. The canopy was therefore always borne after him.
When his Majesty had got a little way down the Hall, he turned to his
train-bearers, and requested them to bear his train farther from him,
apparently with a view to relieve himself from the weight. As he went
down the Hall he conversed with much apparent cheerfulness with the
bishop of Lincoln, who was on his right hand.
* * * * *
It will behove the historian to record the unsuccessful attempts of her
Majesty to obtain the usual honour of Queen-Consort on the preceding
occasion, _i.e._ that of a joint coronation with her husband; and too
much public attention was excited to the subject at the period of the
coronation to render our sketch of that august ceremony complete without
adverting to it.
Her Majesty first presented a memorial, desiring to know in what way she
was to attend the coronation; to which it was replied, that it rested
with the King to nominate who should be present, and his Majesty was
advised that he could not allow her to be present.
The Queen rejoined, that she should be present if not absolutely
prohibited; and it was farther replied, that his Majesty's ministers
advised that she could not be received.
She now prayed the King in council (July 1) to be heard by her legal
advisers against this decision--a request which was granted "as matter
of _favour_," according to the language of the minister, "but not of
right;" and, on Thursday, July 5, at ten o'clock in the morning, the
Privy Council met at Whitehall to hear her Majesty's claim argued. For
many years so large a Privy Council had not met, there being forty-nine
members present, besides a considerable number of members of parliament
not of the council.
Mr. BROUGHAM, after stating the refusal of the dean and chapter of
Westminster to grant him the use of the "_Liber Regalis_" (a formula of
the coronation ceremony in their custody), and having induced the
president to send for that volume, commenced by observing:
That "the King had the right of being crowned," was a proposition which
he thought he should have no difficulty of supporting; and that the
Queen enjoyed the same right, he thought he could establish upon exactly
the same legal ground. The ground upon which he mainly relied was a
uniform, uninterrupted practice, in the sense in which he thought he
should be permitted to use and avail himself of these terms in a court
of justice, and in which he should be justified in establishing out of
them the legal existence of any private right. That some interruptions
had arisen in this uniform practice he was prepared to admit and
explain, for they were such as did not affect the uninterrupted right;
but, in the mode in which he had to account for them, rather sanctioned
and confirmed it. There would be two propositions which he entreated
their lordships to bear in mind while he went through his narrative of
historical facts. The first was the uniform exercise of the right;
namely, that no king had ever been crowned, being married at the time of
his coronation, without the queen-consort herself partaking with the
king in the solemnity of the coronation; and, secondly, that there never
was a queen-consort in England who had not partaken of the ceremony of
the coronation: but in making these two propositions, he begged of
course to be understood, as using them subject to the usual
qualifications of general propositions; which were--being bound to show
that where any interruptions had existed, they did not compromise the
general right. With interruptions, as to the first proposition, he had
but one to contend, which was capable of easy solution. As to the
second, he could easily and satisfactorily explain whatever exceptions
had arisen, for they were few, and tended to confirm the right of the
Queen-Consort. The learned gentleman then proceeded to call the
attention of the lords of the council to various records which he quoted
from English history, in order to establish his proposition,--the right
of British queens to be crowned, from the year 784, through the Saxon
and Norman lines, down to the house of Tudor. In Henry the Second's
reign a remarkable circumstance occurred: the solemnity of crowning his
eldest son took place in his father's life-time; the prince was married
to a daughter of Louis of France, and she was not crowned although her
husband was. The novelty of that omission of what was considered a
uniform ceremony, led to a complaint and remonstrance to the king of
England, and the result was, that he had recourse for redress to the
usual process of kings--to arms, and a declaration of war; and in front
of his reasons for taking that step, the French king placed the omission
to crown his daughter with her husband. Henry was at length obliged to
submit, for he went over to France and entered into some compromise
with Louis to avert hostilities, and the daughter of the French king was
solemnly crowned at Winchester by bishops and other venerable and
distinguished authorities, who were sent over from France to perform the
ceremony of her coronation with suitable splendour.
On arriving at the era of Henry the Sixth, the learned counsel said he
should refer to the law of Scotland about the period of history at which
he was passing. The Scottish documents contained enough to establish the
fact, that no king of Scotland who was married at the time of his
coronation was ever crowned without his consort; nor, where the marriage
took place afterwards, was there an instance in which a Scottish queen
was not crowned as soon as possible after she became queen. The learned
counsel then referred to the act 1428 in the Scottish statutes, cap.
109, passed in the eighth parliament of James the First, and read the
"aith to be made to the queen, be the clergie and the baronnes."
The case of Henry the Seventh's queen was next quoted. She had been
crowned two years after the king's coronation. This coronation was
announced by proclamation similar to that which had announced his own
two years and a month before; and the order of it, as would be seen in
the Close Roll, and in Rymer, was similar to that observed at all other
coronations of queens-consort. The varying conduct of Henry the Eighth
with regard to his queens was then accounted for. Charles the First was
crowned without his queen, because of the antipathy of the people
against the papists, of whom she was one; yet only nine days before he
was himself crowned, a proclamation was issued for the crowning of his
queen, but observing the popular feeling to be against such a measure,
that ceremony was postponed. The queen was said to have objected to take
any part in the coronation unless she could be assisted in it by a
popish priest, which the constitution of the country rendered absolutely
impossible. The same reasons operated against the crowning of Charles
the Second's queen, who was also a papist. James the Second and his
queen were crowned together, although they were both Roman Catholics.
If he and his consort could reconcile it to themselves to go into a
Protestant cathedral, and to partake in the ceremonies of a Protestant
ritual, there was an end of the difficulty which he had described as
originating from the words of one of the oaths having one sense to one
of the parties who took them, and another to the other. Since the
revolution every thing regarding this subject was well known, and every
king and queen had been regularly crowned. With regard to the queen of
George the First, he must beg leave to observe, that as she had never
been in this country, he had nothing to do with her. Besides, she was
said to have been divorced from her husband by the sentence of a foreign
ecclesiastical court before he ascended the throne of this country; so
that it was legally impossible that she could be crowned if she had been
divorced from her husband, and physically impossible if she had never
set foot in the country. Her case, therefore, formed no exception to her
present Majesty's right. Whilst he was upon this subject he might be
permitted to remark, as not extraneous to it, that he had not expected
and did not expect to hear in that court, as a bar to her Majesty's
claim, that some proceedings had been instituted against her. He made
that assertion not on his own authority, but on the authority of a noble
and learned judge, who, in giving sentence on the King and Wolfe, in the
court of the highest resort in the country, had said, in consequence of
some observations having been made as to the defendant having been
guilty of some great offence, "If a man be guilty of ever so great an
offence, and the proceedings against him fail in substantiating that
offence, he is to be considered in law as innocent as if no such offence
had ever been charged against him."
Friday, July 6.--Mr. BROUGHAM rose at a few minutes after ten to resume
his speech. He had yesterday gone through a long and unbroken series of
precedents, showing that no king of England had ever been crowned, he
being married at the time of his coronation, without his consort
participating in that ceremony. Having gone so far, he contended that he
had a right to assume his larger proposition, that queens-consort had,
at all times throughout the ages of English history, themselves enjoyed
the ceremony of the coronation. If in one or two instances this was not
done at the time when the king's own coronation took place, and
supposing that there was an instance or two where the queen-consort
became such after the coronation of the king, still he would affirm,
that according to all the rules of argument, of law, and of common
sense, those few instances, (admitting there were some, though in point
of strict fact he believed there were none,) did not in any manner or
degree affect his general argument, which he held upon the authorities
he had cited to be altogether incontrovertible. He was not before their
lordships to show where the right which he asserted in behalf of the
queen-consort had been claimed and refused. In every instance, in which
it was actually possible for a coronation of a queen to take place, he
had shown that it had been solemnized. There was not a single case
which, _quoad_ that case, cast a doubt upon the uniform force of his
proposition, except that of Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles the First;
and he reminded their lordships, it was merely a doubt so far as that
particular case went. He had a right then to assume the larger
proposition, that all queens-consort of England had, in point of fact,
been crowned. Nothing was clearer in the rules of equity and law, than
that non-uses did not forfeit, unless where they clearly, from the
length of the lapse, involved a waiver of the claim. Where a right had
been disputed, and the opposition assented to by the party tacitly, or
confirmed by a competent authority, then, of course, there was an end to
the legal exercise of such a right. But here the very reverse was the
fact. Suppose he were called upon to prove a right of way or a right of
common, (the two instances in which the courts of law were most commonly
called upon to consider the length of usage,) the principle of law would
go with the uniformity, and the absence of exercising the right in one
or two particular instances would prove nothing. There were three modes
of calling into question the fact of usage; _first_, as to its uniform
enjoyment; _next_, where the right claimed by the party had been
contested, but nevertheless enjoyed by the person exercising it; and the
_third_ case was, where the right asserted had been confiscated, and an
adjudication passed upon it: that was of course held to be conclusive
against the party, where the right claimed was refused, opposed, and not
acquiesced in; then he admitted that no long admission of the right
could be pleaded without the fatal interruption of the bar. He entreated
their lordships to try the usage of the coronation of the queen-consort
by these three principles of investigating such rights founded upon
immemorial custom. Of the first, namely, uniform enjoyment, they had
abundant proof. As to the second, namely, the occurrence of interruption
in the exercise of the right, non-acquiescence in that interruption, a
successful and most complete resistance to the attempt to withhold the
exercise of the right, they had that, fully sustaining his proposition,
in the case of the wife of Prince Henry; where Henry thought proper in
his lifetime to crown his eldest son without also crowning that eldest
son's consort. He had therefore with him the uniform enjoyment of the
right her Majesty claimed; then the successful resistance of an attempt,
as in Henry's case, to delay the exercise of the right; and lastly, the
total absence of any adjudication or confiscation, or any thing like
either in any single instance against him. There was, in fact, no other
possible way of showing the existence of the right, but in the manner in
which he was assuming, proving, and, as he thought, establishing it. How
else, before the Court of Claims, were rights of service at the ceremony
of the coronation established? How else did the barons of the Cinque
Ports show their right to carry the canopy over the king, and to have a
part of that canopy for their service? Suppose any instance in which the
barons should, for want of specific proof, in the lapse of ages, fail to
show that they had exercised that privilege--would that countervail the
validity of their claim, founded on repeated usage? Certainly not. He
would venture to say that there were at least half a dozen instances in
which the barons could not show they had exercised their asserted right:
and would any of these instances, where that proof failed, shake the
firm hold of their long and undeniable usage? Upon a reference to the
services which were to be performed at the ceremony of the coronation,
it was clear, from the separate rights held upon the performance of
particular kinds of attendance upon the queen, that her part of the
ceremony was substantive, independent, and principal; that her right was
clearly within herself, and not dependent upon the mere will of the
King. So essential, indeed, was it that she should be crowned with all
the forms of pomp which belonged to such a solemnity, that the same
writs of summons were issued, and nearly the same demands of service
made upon officers of state as when the king himself was crowned. The
usage clearly governed the right, and more especially in this solemnity
of coronation, which was altogether the creature of precedent, and
existed only by its authority. The queen's coronation was in itself
manifestly a substantive, important, and independent ceremony,
illustrative of the right of the one party, and not dependent or
contingent upon the mere will of the monarch. The origin of the king's
ceremonial was lost in remote antiquity; but the numerous tenures and
dependencies determinable by the non-performance of services at the
solemnity, showed how important it was intended to be in the eyes of the
people. The only grounds of right for the king's coronation, the queen
equally had for hers; and there were, as he had already stated, separate
forms prescribed for those who were officially to attend her ceremony.
The learned counsel then quoted some passages from the _Liber Regalis_,
being merely directions for particular parts of the ceremonial to be
observed on the queen's coronation. Every solemnity of which the origin
was lost in distant antiquity, which was in itself of a most high and
public nature, and which occupied a great and important space in the
history of the country, he would fearlessly assert, must be deemed and
taken as the right of the realm, and not as a mere appanage of the king.
He held the coronation of the king himself to be a right of this
nature; and that, not merely in the present times on account of the
coronation oath, (which had been devised by the legislature on the
coronation of William and Mary,) but also in times long before them:
indeed, it had always been considered as a high and august ceremony with
which the monarch himself could not dispense; it being the right of the
sovereign, not in his individual but in his political capacity, for the
benefit of the whole nation, in which capacity alone the nation knew him
at his coronation. So much with regard to the coronation of the king.
The coronation of the queen ought to be considered in a similar light,
from its having been celebrated almost without interruption with the
same publicity, and from being in its nature such as he had repeatedly
described it. The king and the queen being both of them the mere
creations of the law, the solemnities of their coronations were mere
creations of the law also, and were known to it in no other light than
as the rights of the whole realm of England. He, therefore, who was
ready to take one step, and to get rid of the queen's coronation, as a
mere optional ceremony, ought to be ready to take also another step, and
to get rid of the king's coronation, on the ground of its being a vain,
idle, empty, and expensive pageant. Her claim to a coronation rested
upon immemorial usage, and the numerous rights of individuals which were
interwoven and connected with it. Indeed, it rested on the same
foundation as the king's: it was supported by the same arguments, and
the interruptions which it had experienced admitted of the same
explanations that he had given to those which had occurred in the case
of the king. He had mentioned, in the course of his argument, the rights
which belonged to other individuals in consequence of the queen's right
to a coronation. If a coronation was not granted to her Majesty, their
rights were unavailing to them; and that, in his opinion, formed a very
sufficient reason why it should be celebrated. That the coronation was
the acknowledgment of the king by the people, he conceived to be a point
which it was unnecessary to prove to their lordships: but he might be
permitted to remark to them, that the coronation of the queen was even
considered as an acknowledgment of her right to enjoy that dignity in an
entry in a charter roll of the fifth year of King John, now preserved in
the Tower. The entry to which he alluded was the grant of certain lands
in dower to his Queen Isabella, and it referred by way of recital to her
coronation as queen. This excerpt was of no small importance in the
consideration of this question; for it proved to their lordships, that
in times when the coronation of the king was positively either his
election, or the recognition of his election as monarch, the coronation
of the queen was conducted, for the very same reasons, with the same
solemnities. This was evident from the description of what was done, and
from the manner and the avowed object of doing it. John was crowned to
show that he was king--"_coronatus in regem_." Isabella was crowned to
show that she was queen--"_in reginam coronata communi consensu
archiepiscoporum_," &c. &c. The very same persons who elected, or
recognised, or only crowned him as their monarch, are, in this passage,
recorded to have elected, or recognised, or only crowned her as their
queen. Was it intended to be maintained that no right existed, whenever
something moving from the crown was necessary to the exercise of it? He
would frankly confess that he knew of no right which a subject could
enjoy without the interposition of the crown in some manner or other.
All writs issued from the crown, and no right could be maintained
without them; yet, would any one dispute the right of the subject to
obtain them? Supposing a peer were to die, and the crown were to refuse
a writ of summons to his eldest son: it was said to be by petition of
right alone that he could sue to the crown to be admitted to his
father's honours; and yet that petition of right would be considered as
a strict undeniable legal right. He could refer also to cases in which
the subject could demand, not merely the king's writ, but also the
king's proclamation, to which he was entitled, not by a common law
right, but by a right given him by an express statute; for instance, in
all cases relative to prize-money. Again, supposing that the House of
Commons were to die a natural death after sitting for seven years, and
the king were to refuse to issue his proclamation to convoke another
within three years of that period, as ordered by the first of William
and Mary, sec. 2, cap. 2, would it be asserted that the subject would
have no right to call for the proclamation of the king to convoke
another parliament, because such proclamation could not issue without an
act of the crown? He thought that none of their lordships would advocate
such an absurdity. But the subject and the country were in full
possession of all these rights; and if the Queen's right to a coronation
were put upon the same footing, it would be equally clear that she
possessed it, and that the necessity of granting it was as obvious as it
was imperative. He had heard it said that her Majesty could not claim
the honours of a coronation by prescription, because she was not a
corporation. This, however, he denied. Her Majesty certainly could
prescribe, for what business had they to call her Majesty less a
corporation than the King? But still, supposing her not to be a
corporation, she had a right to prescribe as a functionary, holding a
high dignity and situation. This was evident from Baron Comyn's Digest,
who, under the title of _Prescription_, lays it down that such a
functionary can claim by prescription. In conclusion, Mr. Brougham said,
their lordships would sit in dignified judgment on the opinion given by
the great lawyers of the nineteenth century; and, as he firmly believed,
finding they had no difficulties to explain, perceiving that they had no
obscurities to clear up, they would not be under the necessity of
referring to those remote periods of our history, to which he had been
obliged to allude, but would look back to the first decision that ever
had been given on this question, with that decided confidence which the
names of those privy counsellors before whom the case was argued would
in after-times command--a judgment, which he ventured confidently to
pronounce, would not derogate from the high character they had so long
maintained.
Mr. DENMAN followed on the same side, and after a long speech, called on
their lordships, as a court sitting for legal inquiry, to say whether
there ever was a case presented to an inquest, which depended on custom
and usage, where a more complete and perfect body of custom and usage
had been adduced, than was brought forward on the present occasion? If
her Majesty's claim were refused, no dignity was safe, no property was
secure, not a single institution could be said to rest on a firm
foundation. If the coronation of the Queen could not be supported by
custom, the rest of that ceremonial could not be supported. Why was this
country governed by a king? Why did we submit to a kingly government?
Because the earliest ages, because all times, had recognised that form
of government, and because we could trace that custom beyond all time of
memory. Nothing could be more dangerous than to separate royalty from
the circumstances which belonged to it and added to its dignity. The
lives and properties of men depended for their security upon the same
principle. Why was there a house of peers, in which noble lords formed a
part of the legislature? Why were there commoners, who sat as
representatives of the people? Precisely because custom had ordered it
so. Custom was the author of the law and the law-makers. Custom
authorized the king, lords, and commons, to enact laws for the
government of this realm. All property, all dignity, all offices
existed, because they were sanctioned by prescriptive custom, or because
custom gave a prescriptive right to create them.
Saturday.--The Privy Council resumed this morning, soon after ten
o'clock. Below the bar was again crowded to excess.
Counsel were then called in.
MR. BROUGHAM said, he now held in his hand, and was prepared to lay
before the council, the documentary evidence to which he and his learned
friend had adverted in the course of their addresses in support of her
Majesty's memorial.
LORD HARROWBY.--Mr. Attorney-General, have you any observations to offer
on what counsel have stated to their lordships?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose.--He said, he perhaps should best
discharge his duty by stating, at the commencement, that, in his own
opinion, the argument and claim were wholly unfounded. That the claim
was not founded on any recognised law, appeared from the statements and
course of proceeding adopted by her Majesty's counsel. He would add,
that the claim now made, so far from ever being supposed to have any
foundation, was not even mentioned by any writer on the laws and
constitution. It had never been agitated or alluded to in any way, not
even by those writers who had touched on the privileges peculiar to a
queen-consort. The one single ground urged in support of the claim was
usage--that usage was supposed to have prevailed through a long series
of years at the coronation of kings who were married. It had been stated
with confidence that such usage was evidence in support of the right;
but when they were talking of rights founded on usage, it was not
sufficient to state that particular facts had taken place. In all such
cases, where the facts were relied on, it was essential to state the
circumstances that had attended such facts, the peculiarities that had
accompanied the alleged privilege, whether it was right of way or
otherwise. As to the right of way, for instance; if permission were
given to use certain paths or roads, the fact of such permission having
preceded the use, at once destroyed the claim of right. If the license
and permission were proved, there was an end of the right. By that
proof, all the inferences drawn from the use were at an end--they were
at once destroyed. The coronation was for the purpose of the monarch's
recognition by the people, and on the part of the king to enter into the
solemn compact to preserve the laws. The coronation of a queen was a
mere ceremony; but that of the king was something more than ceremony.
His coronation was accompanied by important political acts--the
recognition by the people, and, on the other hand, the solemn compact
entered into by the sovereign to preserve and maintain the laws of the
realm. Still, however, as far as the king was concerned, it was a
ceremony; it was not necessary to the sovereign's possession of the
crown--it was what proceeded from his will, and might be dispensed with.
But the queen-consort, who filled no political character in the state,
had only enjoyed the privilege because she was the king's consort. With
respect to a queen-consort, when she was crowned, there was no
recognition of her by the people, no compact towards the people. There
was no engagement between her and the subjects of the realm. This fact
established that, with respect to a queen-consort, a coronation was an
honorary ceremony, unaccompanied by any acts. That the coronation
neither was, nor had been considered to be essential to the possession
of the crown, was proved by the fact of considerable delays having often
taken place between the accession of the monarch and his coronation.
Henry the Sixth, for instance, was not crowned till eight years after
the crown had descended to him. Again, in the "_Pleas of the Crown_," it
was held, that the king was fully invested with the crown the moment it
descended to him; that he was absolutely king although there should have
been no coronation. If the coronation of a king, important as he held it
to be, proceeded from the sovereign will, _a fortiori_ it must be so
with that of a queen-consort. The rights of the queen-consort did not
proceed from any coronation; they flowed from her relationship to the
sovereign. Her rights were complete and absolute without any coronation.
Nor was it essential to the people, for the queen-consort occupied no
political station. This view of the right was strengthened by the
important preamble of William and Mary, which settled the coronation
oath. The language of the act applied to queens regnant, not to
queens-consort, for to the latter no oath was administered. As the oath
was prescribed, it became necessary that every reigning monarch should
be crowned, that there might be the oath and recognition; but the law
made no mention of any thing that rendered such a ceremony requisite in
the instance of a queen-consort. How then could the crowning of a
queen-consort be considered a necessary adjunct of the coronation of the
reigning monarch? No part of the ceremony rendered her presence
requisite. Selden's work had been quoted in support of the memorial;
amongst other things, Selden expressly said that the "anointing, &c. of
the queen-consort, were dignities communicated by the king." Selden
further stated, that the anointing of the queen, as well as her
consecration--it was, in fact, a consecration rather than a
coronation--proceeded from the "request" and "demand" of the king, after
he had been crowned, made to the metropolitan, who had performed such
ceremony. Bracton had entered largely into the particulars _de
coronatione regis_, but not one word of the queen's coronation. There
was not a single law-writer that had touched upon the existence of such
a right, as appertaining to a queen. Blackstone had it not, nor Lord
Coke, nor Selden. He next adverted at some length to the precedents
quoted by his learned friends opposite, beginning with that of William
the Conqueror. The very precedents quoted by his learned friends raised
the inference, if there were no other arguments, that the act, so far as
related to the queen, was entirely dependent on the will of the king.
The Attorney-General then referred largely to Reymer, from whose book he
quoted apposite passages, in support of his main argument, that the
ceremony of a queen's coronation was entirely dependent upon the order
of the king. In all, from the time of Henry the Seventh, six queens had
been crowned, and seven had not; so that the majority was against the
present claim, which it had been attempted to support on the plea of
ancient, uninterrupted usage.
The Attorney-General concluded at a quarter before one o'clock; and the
Solicitor-General, after a short pause, rose to follow his learned
friend, and of course was compelled to go over the same ground,
strengthening and confirming the preceding statements by such arguments
as occurred to his observance, and contending that the usage pleaded by
her Majesty's law-officers arose entirely from the sovereign's will and
pleasure.
About two o'clock MR. BROUGHAM rose in reply, but we can touch but very
briefly on his arguments. It had been intimated that the queen's right
to be crowned rested on the proclamation of the king; but it might as
well be pleaded that the right of the eldest sons of peers to seats in
the House of Lords rested on the king's writ, because usually preceded
by it. It had been argued from the word _postulamus_, that the queen's
coronation depended on the king's will; but it might as well be argued,
from another term employed (_dignemini_), that it was optional in the
archbishop. If this right was unnecessary for the queen, how was it
necessary to the king? He contended not for the necessity, but the
right. The learned gentleman then went over the various cases and
authorities of the learned counsel for the crown, and concluded by
stating his opinion, that even if the _right_ were not established, the
expediency was such, that the council would be all but criminal, in
advising that her Majesty should be excluded from her part in this
important ceremony; for it would be setting an example of the most
injurious nature.
MR. BROUGHAM concluded his reply at half-past three o'clock. Strangers
were then ordered to withdraw; the counsel and agents on both sides,
however, remaining. The Tower record-keepers were called in, to verify
certain documents produced by Mr. Brougham. After which, at a quarter to
four o'clock, the Privy Council adjourned.
The decision was ultimately _against_ the Queen's claim.
* * * * *
On the 11th of July, in the House of Commons, MR. HUME made an
ineffectual attempt to induce the House to address his Majesty on this
much-agitated subject.
He had just commenced the reading of a resolution "That an humble
address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously
pleased to issue his royal proclamation for the coronation of her
Majesty," when the deputy-usher of the black rod was heard knocking at
the door; and as he was concluding it, he was called to order by the
Speaker, who reminded him of the presence of that officer; and proceeded
forthwith to the House of Peers, where parliament was prorogued.
The following spirited protest of her Majesty appeared on the 17th.