Duchess of Northumberland was seeking to give a political bias to the education of the Princess; and some uneasiness was therefore created at the palace." The "Times" asserted, with iteration, that the Duchess of Kent had "refused to attend, yes, refused to attend," and reproved Her Royal Highness, in the harsh terms which illustrated many of the controversies of the day, for the impertinence of the widow of a mediatized German Prince, in withholding her daughter from a ceremony at which she could never, at one time, have expected to see daughter of hers, as heiress-presumptive to the crown of England! Other papers made this alleged refusal rest on the course taken by Lord A. Fitzclarence, who, in marshalling the coronation procession, on paper, had assigned a place to the Princess Victoria, after the other members of the royal family, instead of next to the King and Queen. Finally, the "Globe," on authority, declared that the Duchess having pleaded the delicate state of her daughter's health, had obtained the king's sanction to her absence,—a version of the end of a story which began, nevertheless, more like the current report of it than would seem here to be indicated. As marked an instance of absence as that of the Princess, was that of the whole of such members of the preceding administration, as happened to be members of the House of Commons. This, however, little affected the King, who, at the subsequent dinner at St. James's Palace, gave, as a toast, the "Land we live in," and declared that, except as a formality and memorial, the coronation was an useless affair, as far as he was concerned, for no oath he had there taken could bind him more stringently to fulfil his duty towards the people than he felt himself to be bound as soon as the responsibility of his position had fallen upon him.

The land he lived in now speedily became agitated by that wave of revolution which was shaking many of the monarchies of Europe. England endured as great revolution as any of them, but with this difference, that here it was effected according to law, and albeit not exempt from very vast perils, was carried through to its natural consequences, to the mutual advantage of the government and the governed.

When the first rumours began to spread of an opposition establishing itself at court against the progress of reform, the press manifested particular desire to exonerate the Queen from the charge of participating in, or heading such a course. The "Times" especially interfered to protect that lady from similar aspersions. Papers of less influence, but of like principles, had openly named Queen Adelaide, the two daughters of George III., Elizabeth, (Princess of Hesse Homburg,) and Mary, (Duchess of Gloucester,) as mischievously active in impeding the popular will. In answer to such accusations, the "Times" (April 9, 1831) in a brief, but spirited and courteous leader, denounced the falsehood, and showed the improbability and the unfairness of such allegations. On a like occasion, that paper fairly urged that whatever opinions might be expressed by members of the household, they were not to be attributed to the mistress of that household. At the same time, on these members and on the fair frequenters of drawing-rooms who there gave utterance to sentiments which they carried into action elsewhere, against the great consummation sought by the people, the pro-reform paper thundered its bolts and showered its sarcasm with unsparing hands. On most occasions, however, so much was made of the apparent heartiness of the King, that excess of praise in that direction, took the form of censure on the lukewarmness if not the hostility of the Queen. Contrasts rather than parallels were the favourite medium for turning the public attention to the two sovereigns. The Ex-Chancellor Eldon was said to have assured Queen Adelaide, that if reform was carried, the days of her drawing-rooms were numbered, and that royalty would do well to follow a counsel which was given by Earl Grey to the bishops,—namely, set its house in order. On the other hand, we hear of the new Chancellor Brougham attending the court with his huge official purse so full of petitions in favour of parliamentary reform, that as he continued to extract and present them, he apologized to King William for troubling him with such piles of the public prayers or demands. Whereupon the King is said to have remarked, in the hearing of the Queen, "My Lord Chancellor, I am willing to receive anything from that purse, except the seals!" The wit was small, but the suggestiveness was considered important, and gossips, on both sides, jumped to conclusions which had questionable affinity with the premises.

While the Queen was thus treated with a certain degree of moderation by the press, she is said to have been seriously coerced by the liberal ministry of the day. The charge was distinctly made, after the Queen's death, in a funeral sermon, preached by the Rev. Mr. Browne, Vicar of Atwick. The occasion was so solemn, that an honest man was not likely to be led even into exaggeration, much less into deliberate misrepresentation. I will therefore quote the preacher's own words:—

"The Queen-Consort had witnessed in her father-land, some of the dreadful effects of the French revolutionary movements; and she was known to disapprove, out of womanly feeling and fear for her husband's safety, of popular tumults and agitations. With the narrow-minded and impure, suspicion is proof, and is followed by resentment. This pure being was a sufferer by the machinations and exactions of the ephemeral favourites of the misguided populace. Her influence over her royal husband was too great to be trusted, and she was forbidden,—I speak advisedly, and mean nothing less than 'forbidden'—to have a kindred spirit near her during the agitation and intimidation, by which the measure called the Reform Bill, was supported and carried."

It was when that bill was in jeopardy, when the King,—who had made so many knights that the very pages called them the "Arabians," the "Thousand and One,"—hesitated to create a sufficient number of new lords to secure the passing of the bill in the Upper House; it was then that the press began to admonish the King and to menace the Queen. On one occasion, when they attended at the opening of the new Staines Bridge, where, by the way, they were so closely pressed upon by the mob, that maids of honour and gentlemen in waiting had their pockets picked, the Conservative wits remarked, that the King might make new bridges, but that he must leave the peers alone. The Whig party at once assumed that Queen Adelaide was at the head of a faction, whose object was to give reality to such jokes, and thenceforward the Queen was little spared. The "Times" asserted that it was by "domestic importunity" alone that the free action of the King's mind was impeded. The Queen was compared to Queen Amata, in the "Æneid," cajoling or raging at her older consort, Latinus, because the latter preferred Æneas to Turnus, as a husband for their daughter, Lavinia. There was not much alike in the two cases, for Amata was a staunch Conservative, who detested the idea of a foreign prince obtaining the hand of her daughter, and exercising influence within the limits of Latium. But there were strong terms in the original which suited the purpose of the hour, and the Queen was pelted with them most unmercifully.

Occasionally, there was a truth mixed up with the harder words, which even ultra-Tories could not gainsay, as when the "Times" remarked, that "a foreigner was no very competent judge of English liberties, and politics are not the proper field for female enterprize or exertion." When this strong hint was taken to have failed, and Queen Adelaide was still supposed to be conspiring with the daughters of George III. to turn King William from his liberal views, this was the tone with which the royal lady was lectured by the press:—"There is a lady of high rank, who must be taught a salutary,