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,

No. VII-Note from the Earl of Liverpool to Mr. Brougham, accompanying his Answer to the Commu nication from the Queen of the 12th June, 1820.

Lord Liverpool presents his compliments to Mr. Brougham, and requests that he will inform the Queen, that if the accompanying answer should not appear to require any reply, Lord Liverpool is prepared to name the two persons whom his Majesty will appoint for the purpose referred to in this Note.—13th June, 1820.

No. VIII—Mr. Brougham to the Earl of Liverpool,

stating that he has received the Queen's Commands to name two Persons to meet the two who may be named on the Part of his Majesty's Government for settling en Arrangement.

Mr. Brougham presents his compliments to Lord Liverpool, and begs leave to inform him, that he has received the Queen's commands to name two persons to meet the two whom his Lordship may name on the part of his Majesty's Government, for the purpose of settling an arrangement.

Mr. Brougham hopes to be favoured with Lord Liverpool's nomination this evening, in order that an early appointment for a meeting to-morrow may take place. 14th June, 1820.

APPENDIX.

Memorandum for a proposed Arrangement with the Queen.

The Act of the 54th Geo. III. cap. 160, recognised the separation of the Prince Regent from the Princess of Wales, and allotted a separate provision for the Princess.

This provision was to continue during the life of his late Majesty, and to determine at his demise. In consequence of that event, it has altogether ceased, and no provision can be made for her until it shall please his Majesty to recommend to Parliament an arrangement for that purpose.

The King is willing to recommend to Parliament to enable his Majesty to settle an annuity of 50,000l. a year upon the Queen, to be enjoyed by her during her natural life, and in lieu of any claim in the nature of jointure or otherwise, provided she will engage not to come into any part of the British dominions, and provided she engages to take some other name or title than that of Queen, and not to exercise any of the rights or privileges of Queen, other than with respect to the appointment of law officers, or to any proceedings in Courts of Justice.

The annuity to cease upon the violation of those engagements, viz. upon her coming into any part of the British dominions, or her assuming the title of Queen, or her exercising any of the rights or privileges of Queen other than above excepted, after the annuity shall have been settled upon her. Upon her consent to an engagement on the above conditions, Mr. Brougham is desired to obtain a declaration to this effect, signed by herself; and at the same time a full authority to conclude, with

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 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.

t

2d. 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 on, might lead. The Queen must not be understood to admit, or the King to retract, any thing.

3d. That in order the better to accomplish the above important object, it was proposed that what ever 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 encou rage 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? ↓ 2d. The title which her Majesty might think fit to assume when travelling on the Continent. I

3d. The non-exercise of certain rights of patron? age 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 in. dispensable 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 negociations; 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 la 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 connection 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 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 farther, 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 re

cognition 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 formerly 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 Representa tives 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 ne.. vertheless 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 mis-, sions, her Majesty's accommodation, and to contribute to her personal comfort and convenience.

Her Majesty's Law Officers gave the King's Ser-. vants 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,

H. BROUGHAM,*) CASTLEREAGH, T. DENMAN. **

No. H.-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 fini delity to the King's Government, the proposition brought forward by her Majesty's Law Officers, that I the Queen's name should be expressly included in 1 the Liturgy, in order to protect her Majesty against.. any misconstruction of the grounds on which her Majesty might consent to reside abroad; but 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 pro ceedings.

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 estab. lish her residence, every endeavour would be made to secure for her Majesty from that State, the full

est 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 re lations, the instructions under which the Ministers abroad now acted, were communicated to the Queen's Law Officers, and their attention was di rected, 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 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 Offcers, 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 this difficalty 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 b

It was replied, that the King's Servants had 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 ne cessary 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 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 arrange ment, 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 pro-` tracted beyond Monday, to which day it should be proposed that the proceedings on the King's Mes sage 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, H. BROUGHAM, CASTLEREAGH, T. DENMAN.

No. III.-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 to the points discussed in the preceding Conference, upon which no explicit opinion had been expressed by them on' the part of his Majesty's Government; they then declared, that they were authorised to inform the Queen's Law Officers, that in the event of her Majesty's going to the Continent, a Yacht or Ship of War would be provided for the conveyance of her Majesty, either 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.

1

It was further stated by the King's Servants, that having weighed the suggestion communicated; by the Queen's Law Officers in the preceding Col ference, 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 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 respec

tively afforded, towards the accomplishment of an arrangement by Parliament had been saved

the necessity of so painful a discussión.

These observations not appearing to make any material difference in the views taken by her Ma, jesty's Law Officers of the result of the Conferences, it was agreed to proceed in the arrangement of the རྩྭ་* ༄། ༥‚༅། 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 Ma jesty's introduction at Foreign Courts, were either of them a condition sine que 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, or an equivalent, which would have the effect of protecting her Majesty against the unfavourable inference to which her Majesty might be liable in leaving the country under the circumstances in which her Majesty was placed, was a sine qua 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,

H. BROUGHAM, CASTLEREAGH, T. DENMAN.

No. IV-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 public 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

The latter observation was mety on the part of the King's Servanto, by a reassertion of his Ma jesty'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, H. BROUGHAM,11 CASTLEREAGH, T. DENMAN

1

No. V.-Protocol of the Fifth Conference, held at the "Foreign Office, June 19, 1820.

The Protocols of the preceding Conferences were read and agreed upon.

Her Majesty's Law Officers stated, that the pro position of yesterday had been submitted to her Majesty, and that it had not produced any altera. tion in her Majesty's sentiments.

In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the expression used ón 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.

MEMORANDUM.

A

An anxious desire was still felt by the House of Commons, to save the country from the impending disclosures,

grounds upon which this principle rested.

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 be 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 following resolutions:

"That that House had learnt with unfeigned and deep regret, that the late endeavours to frame au amicable arrangement, with a view to avert the ne cessity of instituting an inquiry into the information laid before the two Houses of Parliament, had not led to an adjustment of the differences now unhap pily existing in the Royal Family, so auxiously des sired by that House, and by the country. That the House was fully seusible of the difhculty which ber Majesty might justly feel in taking upon herself to relinquish any point in which her own dignity and honour were involved; yet, feeling the inestimable importance of effecting an amicable and final adjustment of the differences alluded to; it could not but be. of opinion, when such large advances had been made towards meeting the wishes of the Queen, that her Majesty, by yielding to the earnestly expressed wishes of the House, and forbearing to press those points

Jn