Download the full version of the ebook at ebookname.

com

Load calculation applications manual Second

Edition. I-P Edition Spitler

https://ebookname.com/product/load-calculation-applications-
manual-second-edition-i-p-edition-spitler/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Load Calculation Applications Manual 2nd Ed SI Second

Edition, Si Edition Spitler

https://ebookname.com/product/load-calculation-applications-
manual-2nd-ed-si-second-edition-si-edition-spitler/

ebookname.com

Residential Load Calculation Manual J 7th Edition Hank

Rutkowski

https://ebookname.com/product/residential-load-calculation-
manual-j-7th-edition-hank-rutkowski/

ebookname.com

2015 ASHRAE Handbook HVAC Applications Heating Ventilating

and Air Conditioning Applications I P includes CD in I P
and SI editions Ashrae Applications Handbook Inch Pound
Ashrae
https://ebookname.com/product/2015-ashrae-handbook-hvac-applications-
heating-ventilating-and-air-conditioning-applications-i-p-includes-cd-
in-i-p-and-si-editions-ashrae-applications-handbook-inch-pound-ashrae/
ebookname.com

The One Minute Apology A Powerful Way to Make Things

Better 1st Edition Ken Blanchard

https://ebookname.com/product/the-one-minute-apology-a-powerful-way-
to-make-things-better-1st-edition-ken-blanchard/

ebookname.com
Introduction to Biostatistics and Research Methods 5th
Edition P. S. S. Sundar Rao

https://ebookname.com/product/introduction-to-biostatistics-and-
research-methods-5th-edition-p-s-s-sundar-rao/

ebookname.com

Geometry of Sporadic Groups Volume 1 Petersen and Tilde

Geometries 1st Edition A. A. Ivanov

https://ebookname.com/product/geometry-of-sporadic-groups-
volume-1-petersen-and-tilde-geometries-1st-edition-a-a-ivanov/

ebookname.com

Lectures on Dynamical Systems Hamiltonian Vector Fields

and Symplectic Capacities Ems Textbooks in Mathematics 1st
Edition Eduard Zehnder
https://ebookname.com/product/lectures-on-dynamical-systems-
hamiltonian-vector-fields-and-symplectic-capacities-ems-textbooks-in-
mathematics-1st-edition-eduard-zehnder/
ebookname.com

Digital Media Production for Beginners 1st Edition Julia

V. Griffey

https://ebookname.com/product/digital-media-production-for-
beginners-1st-edition-julia-v-griffey/

ebookname.com

Leningrad Dutch Grandmaster Repertoire 1st Edition Mihail

Marin

https://ebookname.com/product/leningrad-dutch-grandmaster-
repertoire-1st-edition-mihail-marin/

ebookname.com
Gene Regulation Methods and Protocols 1st Edition Minou
Bina (Auth.)

https://ebookname.com/product/gene-regulation-methods-and-
protocols-1st-edition-minou-bina-auth/

ebookname.com
Second Edition
 Load Calculation
Applications Manual
Second Edition

I-P Edition
 This publication was supported by ASHRAE Research Project RP-1616 and
was prepared under the auspices of TC 4.1, Load Calculation Data and Procedures.

Results of cooperative research between ASHRAE and Oklahoma State University.

About the Author

Jeffrey D. Spitler, PhD, PE, is Regents Professor and OG&E Energy Technology Chair in the
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Oklahoma State University, where he
teaches classes and performs research in the areas of heat transfer, thermal systems, design
cooling load calculations, HVAC systems, snow-melting systems, and ground-source heat pump
systems. He is also the Fulbright Distinguished Chair of Alternative Energy Technology at
Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden for the 2014–2015 academic year.

He has worked with a wide range of research sponsors, including ASHRAE, the U.S.
Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, York International Corporation, and
ClimateMaster. He is a past president of the International Building Performance Simulation
Association and is an ASHRAE Fellow.

Spitler has served on several ASHRAE technical committees and standing committees. He
currently serves on ASHRAE Technical Committee 6.8, Geothermal Heat Pump and Energy
Recovery Applications, and the Conferences and Expositions Committee. He has authored or
coauthored more than 120 technical papers and six books, including the Annotated Guide to Load
Calculation Models and Algorithms.

Any updates/errata to this publication will be posted on the

ASHRAE Web site at www.ashrae.org/publication updates.
 RP-1616

Load Calculation
Applications Manual
Second Edition

Jeffrey D. Spitler

I-P Edition

Allanla
 ISBN 978-1-936504-75-6
2009,2014 ASHRAE
1791 Tullie Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30329
www.ashrae.org

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Cover design by Tracy Becker.

ASHRAE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, owned by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE has compiled this publication with care, but ASHRAE has not investigated, and ASHRAE expressly disclaims any duty to investigate, any product,
service, process, procedure, design, or the like that may be described herein. The appearance of any technical data or editorial material in this publication does
not constitute endorsement, warranty, or guaranty by ASHRAE of any product, service, process, procedure, design, or the like. ASHRAE does not warrant that
the information in the publication is free of errors, and ASHRAE does not necessarily agree with any statement or opinion in this publication. The entire risk of
the use of any information in this publication is assumed by the user.

No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission in writing from ASHRAE, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages or reproduce
illustrations in a review with appropriate credit, nor may any part of this publication be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any way or by
any means—electronic, photocopying, recording, or other—without permission in writing from ASHRAE. Requests for permission should be submitted at
www.ashrae.org/permissions.
____________________________________________

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Spitler, Jeffrey D.
Load calculation applications manual / Jeffrey D. Spitler. -- Second edition. I-P edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-936504-75-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Air conditioning--Efficiency. 2. Cooling load--Measurement. 3. Heating load--Measurement. 4.
Heating. I. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. II. Title.
TH7687.5.S683 2014
697.9'3--dc23
2014033511

ASHRAE STAFF

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS
Mark S. Owen
Editor/Group Manager of Handbook and Special
Publications PUBLISHING SERVICES
Cindy Sheffield Michaels David Soltis
Managing Editor Group Manager of Publishing Services and
James Madison Walker Electronic Communications
Associate Editor Jayne Jackson
Sarah Boyle Publication Traffic Administrator
Assistant Editor Tracy Becker
Lauren Ramsdell Graphics Specialist
Editorial Assistant
Michshell Phillips PUBLISHER
Editorial Coordinator W. Stephen Comstock
 Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter One
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter Two
Fundamentals of Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter Three
Thermal Property Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter Four
Environmental Design Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Chapter Five
Infiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter Six
Internal Heat Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter Seven
Fundamentals of the Radiant Time Series Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Chapter Eight
Application of the RTSM—Detailed Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Chapter Nine
Air Systems, Loads, IAQ, and Psychrometrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Chapter Ten
Heating Load Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Chapter Eleven
Heat Balance Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Appendix A
Psychrometric Processes—Basic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Appendix B
Spreadsheet Implementation of the RTSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Appendix C
Calculation of CTSFs and RTFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Appendix D
Solar Radiation and Heat Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Appendix E
Treatment of Thermal Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Appendix F
Treatment of Uncontrolled Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Appendix G
Correction Factor for High-Conductance Surface Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
 Preface

This manual is the fourth in a series of load calculation manuals published by

ASHRAE. The first in the series, Cooling and Heating Load Calculation Manual, by
William Rudoy and Joseph Cuba, was published in 1980. A second edition, by Faye
McQuiston and myself, was published in 1992 and focused on new developments in
the transfer function method and the cooling load temperature difference method.
Subsequent to the second edition, ASHRAE Technical Committee 4.1, Load Calcula-
tions Data and Procedures, commissioned additional research. This research led to the
adaptation of the heat balance method for use in load calculation procedures and
development of the radiant time series method (RTSM) as the recommended simpli-
fied procedure. Both methods were presented in the third volume of this series—
Cooling and Heating Load Calculation Principles, by Curtis Pedersen, Daniel Fisher,
Richard Liesen, and myself.
The Load Calculation Applications Manual, also sponsored by TC 4.1, builds on
the past three, and some parts are taken directly from previous versions. New develop-
ments in data and methods have led to numerous revisions. This manual, intended to
be more applications-oriented, includes extensive step-by-step examples for the
RTSM.
This work, more so than many technical books, represents the work of many indi-
viduals, including the following:

• Authors, named above, of the previous three versions

• Numerous ASHRAE volunteers and researchers who have developed material for
the ASHRAE Handbook that has now been incorporated
• Members of the Project Monitoring Subcommittee, including Chris Wilkins, Steve
Bruning, Larry Sun, and Bob Doeffinger, who have provided extensive comments,
guidance, and direction
• My graduate student, Bereket Nigusse, who has developed most of the spreadsheets
underlying the examples and whose doctoral research has led to a number of devel-
opments in the RTSM that are incorporated into this manual

The contributions of all of these individuals are gratefully acknowledged.

Jeffrey D. Spitler, PhD, PE

vii
 Preface to the Second Edition

To the casual observer, the need for a new load calculation manual may not be
self-evident. Yet, changes in lighting and equipment commonly used in buildings
require new data, new methods that are more widely applicable have become avail-
able, and other newer data have become available since the first edition was originally
published in 2008. These new data and methods have been produced by ASHRAE-
funded research and by volunteers working on ASHRAE technical committees (TCs).
These effort include the following:

• TC 4.1, Load Calculation Data and Procedures, and their contractors (RP-1482)
have produced new internal heat gain data for office equipment.
• TC 4.1 and TC 4.5, Fenestration, and their contractors (RP-1311) have developed new
methods and data for computing the effects of internal shading on solar heat gains.
• TC 4.1 and TC 5.10, Kitchen Ventilation, and their contractors (RP-1326) have
produced a complete new data set on heat gains from kitchen equipment based on
experimental measurements.
• TC 4.2, Climatic Information, and their contractors have produced new weather
data (RP-1613) for over 6000 stations worldwide based on the years 1986–2010.
TC 4.2 also produced a new ASHRAE clear-sky model (RP-1453) that is applica-
ble worldwide—a significant improvement over the old model, which was only
valid for the continental United States. TC 4.2 has also developed improved meth-
ods (RP-1363) for generating design day temperature profiles.
• TC 4.4, Building Materials and Building Envelope Performance, has provided a
major revision of the building thermal properties data.

In addition to acknowledging the members of the above technical committees and

their contractors, I would also like to thank the members of the Project Monitoring Sub-
committee who have overseen this work: Steve Bruning, Jim Pegues, Bob Doeffinger,
Larry Sun, and Chris Wilkins. Their oversight and suggestions have been invaluable.
I have been assisted on this project by three students at Oklahoma State Univer-
sity: a graduate student, Laura Southard, and two undergraduate students, Jimmy Kim
and Amy Wong, who have helped with developing revised examples and source code
for the changes to the accompanying spreadsheets.
Putting together this book from a set of the author’s Word files was a big task
requiring quite a bit of attention to detail. I greatly appreciate the work of the
ASHRAE staff, especially Sarah Boyle, assistant editor of Special Publications, in
editing and typesetting the book. Cindy Michaels, Managing editor of Special Publi-
cations, was also very helpful in getting me access to handbook chapters as soon as
they became available. Thanks to both of you!
I would like to take the author’s prerogative to note three longtime ASHRAE TC
4.1 members who passed away during 2011 and 2012. Lynn G. Bellenger was not
only an active TC 4.1 member, but very active in all areas of ASHRAE, serving as the
first female ASHRAE President in 2010 and 2011. Lynn was an encouragement to
many society members.
Two other TC 4.1 stalwarts, Thomas B. Romine, Jr. and Curtis O. Pedersen, both
passed away in July of 2012. Tom was a consulting engineer in Fort Worth, Texas
who ably represented the viewpoint of the consulting engineer on the technical com-
mittee and helped me keep the end user in mind when I was working on some of the
earlier load calculation manuals. Curt was a professor at the University of Illinois at

ix
Load Calculation Applications Manual (I-P), Second Edition

Urbana-Champaign, my PhD advisor, an investigator on several load calculation-

related research projects, and proponent of using fundamental methods—i.e., the heat
balance method—for load calculations. Both men have had a great impact on the load
calculation methodologies presented in this book.

Jeffrey D. Spitler, PhD, PE

x
 1
Introduction

his manual focuses on two methods for calculating cooling loads in nonresi-

T dential buildings—the heat balance method (HBM) and the radiant time
series method (RTSM). The two methods presented are based on fundamen-
tal heat balance principles, directly so in the case of the HBM, and less
directly so in the case of the RTSM. Both methods were first fully presented
for use in design load calculations in the predecessor to this volume, Cooling and Heating
Load Calculation Principles (Pedersen et al. 1998). Since that time, there have been a
number of developments in the RTSM. This publication attempts to bring the previous
volume up to date, incorporate new developments, and provide a more in-depth treatment
of the method. This edition incorporates recent improvements in available data for
weather, building materials, fenestration, and internal heat gains and improved methods
for predicting clear-sky radiation, design day temperatures, and solar heat gains from fen-
estration.
This publication is accompanied by a set of spreadsheets and a set of weather files,
which can be found at ashrae.org/lcam. The spreadsheets support the more complex
examples in the book; the weather files provided the needed weather information to per-
form load calculations around the world. If the files or information at the link are not
accessible, please contact the publisher.

1.1 Definition of a Cooling Load

When an HVAC system is operating, the rate at which it removes heat from a space is
the instantaneous heat extraction rate for that space. The concept of a design cooling load
derives from the need to determine an HVAC system size that, under extreme conditions,
will provide some specified condition within a space. The space served by an HVAC sys-
tem commonly is referred to as a thermal zone or just a zone. Usually, the indoor boundary
condition associated with a cooling load calculation is a constant interior dry-bulb temper-
ature, but it could be a more complex function, such as a thermal comfort condition. What
constitutes extreme conditions can be interpreted in many ways. Generally, for an office it
would be assumed to be a clear sunlit day with high outdoor wet-bulb and dry-bulb tem-
peratures, high office occupancy, and a correspondingly high use of equipment and lights.
Design conditions assumed for a cooling load determination are subjective. However, after
the design conditions are agreed upon, the design cooling load represents the maximum—
or peak heat extraction—rate under those conditions.

1.2 The Basic Design Questions

In considering the problem of design from the HVAC system engineer’s viewpoint, a
designer needs to address the following three main questions:

1. What is the required equipment size?

2. How do the heating/cooling requirements vary spatially within the building?
3. What are the relative sizes of the various contributors to the heating/cooling load?

The cooling load calculation is performed primarily to answer the second question,
that is, to provide a basis for specifying the required airflow to individual spaces within the

1
Load Calculation Applications Manual (SI), Second Edition

building. The calculation also is critical to professionally answering the first question.
Answers to the third question help the designer make choices to improve the performance
or efficiency of the design and occasionally may influence architectural designers regard-
ing energy-sensitive consequences.

1.3 Overview of the ASHRAE Load Calculation Methods

1.3.1 Models and Reality

All calculation procedures involve some kind of model, and all models are approxi-
mate. The amount of detail involved in a model depends on the purpose of that model.
This is the reality of modeling, which should describe only the variables and parameters
that are significant to the problem at hand. The challenge is to ensure that no significant
aspects of the process or device being modeled are excluded and, at the same time, that
unnecessary detail is avoided.
A complete, detailed model of all of the heat transfer processes occurring in a
building would be very complex and would be impractical as a computational
model, even today. However, building physics researchers and practitioners gener-
ally agree that certain modeling simplifications are reasonable and appropriate
under a broad range of situations. The most fundamental of these is that the air in
the space can be modeled as well-stirred. This means there is an approximately uni-
form temperature throughout the space due to mixing. This modeling assumption is
quite valid over a wide range of conditions. With that as a basis, it is possible to for-
mulate fundamental models for the various heat transfer and thermodynamic pro-
cesses that occur. The resulting formulation is called the HBM. There is an
introduction to the general principles of the HBM in Chapter 2 and further descrip-
tion in Chapter 11.

1.3.2 The Heat Balance Method

The processes that make up the heat balance model can be visualized using the sche-
matic shown in Figure 1.1. It consists of four distinct processes:

1. Outside face heat balance

2. Wall conduction process
3. Inside face heat balance
4. Air heat balance

Figure 1.1 shows the heat balance process in detail for a single opaque surface. The
shaded part of the figure is replicated for each of the surfaces enclosing the zone.
The process for transparent surfaces is similar to that shown but does not have the
absorbed solar component at the outside surface. Instead, it is split into two parts: an
inward-flowing fraction and an outward-flowing fraction. These fractional parts partici-
pate in the inside and outside face heat balances. The transparent surfaces, of course, pro-
vide the transmitted solar component that contributes to the inside heat balance.
The double-ended arrows indicate schematically where there is a heat exchange, and
the single-ended arrows indicate where the interaction is one way. The formulation of the
heat balance consists of mathematically describing the four major processes, shown as
rounded blocks in the figure.

1.3.3 The Radiant Time Series Method

The RTSM is a relatively new method for performing design cooling load calcula-
tions. It is derived directly from the HBM and effectively replaced all other simplified
(non-heat-balance) methods such as the transfer function method (TFM), the cooling

2
 Introduction

Figure 1.1 Schematic of heat balance process in a zone.

(Source: Cooling and Heating Load Calculation Principles, Figure 1.1).

load temperature difference/solar cooling load/cooling load factor method (CLTD/SCL/

CLFM), and the total equivalent temperature difference/time averaging method (TETD/
TAM). The RTSM was developed in response to a desire to offer a method that was rig-
orous yet did not require the iterative calculations of the previous methods. In addition,
the periodic response factors and radiant time factors have clear physical meanings;
when plotted, they allow the user to visually see the effects of damping and time delay
on conduction heat gains and zone response.
The utility of the RTSM lies in the clarity, not the simplicity, of the procedure.
Although the RTSM uses a “reduced” heat balance procedure to generate the radiant
time series (RTS) coefficients, it is approximately as computationally intensive as the
heat balance procedure upon which it is based. What the RTS method does offer is
insight into the building physics without the computational rigor of the HBM, a sacri-
fice in accuracy that is surprisingly small in most cases. Previous simplified methods
relied on room transfer function coefficients that completely obscured the actual heat
transfer processes they modeled. The heat-balance-based RTS coefficients, on the
other hand, provide some insight into the relationship between zone construction and
the time dependence of the building heat transfer processes. The RTSM abstracts the
building thermal response from the fundamentally rigorous heat balance and presents
the effects of complex, interdependent physical processes in terms that are relatively
easy to understand. The abstraction requires a number of simplifying assumptions and
approximations. These are covered in Section 7.1. Figure 1.2 shows the computational
procedure that defines the RTSM. A more detailed schematic is shown in Chapter 7.
In the RTSM, a conductive heat gain for each surface is first calculated using air-to-
air response factors. The conductive heat gains and the internal heat gains are then split
into radiant and convective portions. All convective portions are instantaneously converted
to cooling loads and summed to obtain the fraction of the total hourly cooling load caused
by convection.

3
Load Calculation Applications Manual (SI), Second Edition

Figure 1.2 Schematic of the radiant time series method.

(Source: Cooling and Heating Load Calculation Principles, Figure 1.2).

Radiant heat gains from conduction, internal sources, and solar transmission are oper-
ated on by the RTS to determine the fraction of the heat gain that will be converted to a
cooling load in current and subsequent hours. These fractional cooling loads are added to
the previously calculated convective portions at the appropriate hour to obtain the total
hourly cooling load.

1.4 Organization of the Manual

This manual is organized to roughly proceed from the general to the specific.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the heat transfer processes present in buildings and a
brief discussion of how they are analyzed together in order to determine the building cool-
ing load. Chapters 3–6 cover thermal properties, design conditions, infiltration, and inter-
nal heat gains—all of which are relevant to all load calculation methods. Chapters 7 and 8
cover the theory and application of the RTSM. Chapter 9 covers systems and psychromet-
rics, analyses of which are necessary to determine equipment sizes. Chapter 10 considers
heating load calculations. Chapter 11 covers the HBM and its implementation.
Throughout the manual, numerous shaded examples are presented to illustrate vari-
ous aspects of the RTSM. A number of the examples are performed using spreadsheets
that are included in the supporting files online at www.ashrae.org/lcam.

References
Pedersen, C.O., D.E. Fisher, J.D. Spitler, and R.J. Liesen. 1998. Cooling and Heating
Load Calculation Principles. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

4
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
Caroline—a conclusion against which she protested with great
indignation. Her first step was to pass through France to St. Omer,
where she awaited the arrival of her legal advisers. The then
reigning French monarch had in the time of his own adversity
received substantial aid and continual courtesy from the Queen’s
father; but now, in the hour of the distresses of his former
benefactor’s daughter, he beset her passage through France with
difficulties, and commanded her to be treated with studied neglect.
However mortified, she was a woman of too much spirit to allow her
mortification to be visible, and for the lack of official honours she
found consolation in the sympathy of the people. On the first
intimation of the omission of her name from the Liturgy, the Queen
wrote thus, without consulting any one: ‘The Queen of this Relams
wishes to be informed, through the medium of Lord Liverpool, First
Minister to the King of this Relams, for which reason or motife the
Queen name has been left out of the general Prayer-books in
England, and especially to prevent all her subjects to pay her such
respect which is due to the Queen. It is equally a great omittance
towards the King that his Consort Queen should be obliged to
soummit to such great neglect, or rather araisin from a perfect
ignorance of the Archbishops of the real existence of the Queen
Caroline of England.’ It was finely remarked by Mr. Denman, after he
became the Solicitor-General (at Brougham’s recommendation), that
the Queen was included in the Liturgy, in the prayer ‘for all who are
desolate and oppressed.’
At the inn of St. Omer she was met by Mr. Brougham and Lord
Hutchinson. The latter came as the representative of the ministry,
with no credentials, however, nor even with the ministerial
proposition reduced to writing. The Queen refused to receive it in
any other form. Lord Hutchinson obeyed, and made a written
proposal to the effect that, as she was now without income by the
demise of George III., the King would grant her 50,000l. per annum,
on the special condition that she remained on the continent,
surrendered the title of Queen, adopted no title belonging to the royal
family of England, and never even visited the latter country under
any pretext. It was further stated that, if she set foot in England, the
negotiation would be at an end, the terms violated, and proceedings
be commenced against her Majesty forthwith.
It has been said that the Queen’s immediate and decided
rejection of these proposals, and her resolution to proceed to
England at once, were undoubted proofs of her innocence. The truth,
however, is, that the acceptance of such terms would have been a
tacit confession of her guilt, and, had she been as criminal as her
accusers endeavoured to prove her, her safest course would have
been that which she so spiritedly adopted. The infamy here was
undoubtedly on the part of the ministry. Here was a woman in whom
they asserted was to be found the most profligate of her sex, and to
her they made an offer of 50,000l. per annum, on condition that she
laid down the title of Queen of England, of which they said she was
entirely unworthy; and this sum was to be paid to her out of the taxes
of a people the majority of whom believed that she had been ‘more
sinned against than sinning.’
It has been believed, or at least has been reported, that the
Queen was counselled to the refusal of the compromise annuity of
50,000l. by Alderman Wood. The city dignitary, in such case, got little
thanks for his advice at the hands of Baron Bergami. The latter
individual, on hearing that Queen Caroline had declined to accept
the offer, and that the alderman was her adviser on the occasion,
declared that if he ever encountered the ex-mayor in Italy he would
kill him. The courier-baron’s ground of offence was, that, had the
Queen received the money, a great portion of it would have fallen to
his share, and that he considered himself as robbed by the
alderman, whom he would punish accordingly.
Caroline refused the proposals with scorn. In one of her
characteristic letters she said: ‘The 30th of April I shall be at Calais
for certain; my health is good, and my spirit is perfect. I have seen no
personnes of any kind who could give me any advice different to my
feelings and my sentiments of duty relatif of my present situation and
rank of life.’ Fearful of further obstacle on the part of the French
government, she proceeded at once to Calais, dismissed her Italian
court, and with Alderman Wood and Lady Anne Hamilton she went
on board the ‘Leopold’ sailing packet, then lying in the mud in the
harbour. No facilities were afforded her by the authorities; the
English inhabitants of Calais were even menaced with penalties if
they infringed the orders which had been given, and no compliment
was paid her, except by the master of the packet, who hoisted the
royal standard as soon as her Majesty set foot upon the humble
deck of his little vessel. She sat there as evening closed in, without
an attendant saving the lady already named and the alderman, who
not only gave her his escort now but offered her a home. She had
solicited from the government that a house might be provided for her,
but the application had been received with silent contempt.
Her progress from Dover to London was a perfect ovation. Mr.
Brougham had given her good advice at St. Omer. ‘If,’ he said, ‘your
Majesty shall determine to go to England before any new offer can
be made, I earnestly implore your Majesty to proceed in the most
private and secret manner possible. It may be very well for a
candidate at an election to be drawn into towns by the population,
and they will mean nothing but good in showing this attention to your
Majesty; but a Queen of England may well dispense with such marks
of popular favour, and my duty to your Majesty binds me to say very
plainly that I shall consider any such exhibition as both hurtful to your
Majesty’s real dignity and full of danger in its probable
consequences.’ ‘That Brougham is afraid,’ said the Queen; and so
he was—afraid of her, afraid of some scandal, unknown to him then,
coming out after her arrival. If he could have had his way he would
not have consented to her coming to England at all. The people saw
in her a victim of persecution, and for such there is generally a ready
sympathy. They were convinced, too, that she was a woman of spirit,
and for such there is ever abundant admiration. There was not a
town through which she passed upon her way that did not give her a
hearty welcome, and wish her well through the fiery ordeal which
awaited her. She reached London on the evening of the 7th of June,
1820, and the popular procession of which she was the chief portion
passed Carlton House on its route to the residence of Alderman
Wood, in South Audley Street. There Alderman Wood used to
spread a rug for her Majesty to tread upon, when, to satisfy the loud-
tongued mob, she appeared twenty times a day on the little balcony.
The Attorney-General would not allow his wife to call on her; and
Mrs. Denman received a similar prohibition from Mr. Denman, who,
subsequently, regretted the course he had taken.
The Queen had scarcely found refuge beneath the alderman’s
hospitable roof when Lord Liverpool in the House of Peers, and Lord
Castlereagh in the House of Commons, conveyed a message from
the King to the parliament, the subject of which was that, her Majesty
having thought proper to come to this country, some information
would be laid before them, on which they would have to come to an
ulterior decision, of vast importance to the peace and well-being of
the United Kingdom. Each minister bore a ‘green bag,’ which was
supposed and perhaps did contain minutes of the report made by the
Milan commissioners touching her Majesty’s conduct abroad. The
ministerial communications were made in the spirit and tone of men
who, if not ashamed of the message which they bore, were very
uncertain and infinitely afraid as to its ultimate consequences.
Not that they were wanting in an outward show of boldness. The
soldiers quartered at the King’s Mews, Charing Cross, had been so
disorderly some days previous, allegedly because they had not
sufficient accommodation, that they were drafted in two divisions to
Portsmouth. When the Queen was approaching London a mob
assembled in front of the guard-house, and called upon the soldiers
still remaining there to join them in a demonstration in favour of the
Queen. Lord Sidmouth, who was passing on his way to the House of
Lords, seeing what was going on, proceeded to the Horse Guards,
called out the troops there, and stood by while they roughly
dispersed the people. It was called putting a bold face upon the
matter, but less provocation on the part of a government has been
followed by revolution.
A desire to compromise the unhappy dispute was no doubt
sincerely entertained by ministers, and all hope was not abandoned,
even after the arrival of the Queen. Mr. Rush, the United States
ambassador to England at this period, permits us to see, in his
journal, when this attempt at compromise or amicable arrangement
of the affair was first entered upon by the respective parties. On the
15th of June that gentleman dined at Lord Castlereagh’s with all the
foreign ambassadors. ‘A very few minutes,’ he says, ‘after the last
course, Lord Castlereagh, looking to his chief guest for
acquiescence, made the signal for rising, and the company all went
to the drawing-room. So early a move was unusual: it seemed to cut
short, unexpectedly, the time generally given to conversation at
English dinners after the dinner ends. It was soon observed that his
lordship had left the drawing-room. This was still more unusual; and
now it came to be whispered that an extraordinary cause had
produced this unusual scene. It was whispered by one or another of
the corps that his lordship had retired into one of his own apartments
to meet the Duke of Wellington, as his colleague in the
administration, and also Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, as counsel
for the Queen in the disputes pending between the King and Queen.’
Mr. Rush, after mentioning that the proceedings in parliament were
arrested for the moment by members purporting to be common
friends of both King and Queen, proceeds to state that ‘the dinner at
Lord Castlereagh’s was during this state of things, which explains
the incident at its close, the disputes having pressed with anxiety on
the King’s ministers. That his lordship did separate himself from his
guests for the purpose of holding a conference in another part of his
own house, in which the Duke of Wellington joined him as
representing the King, with Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman as
representing the Queen, was known from the former protocol,
afterwards published, of what took place on that very evening. It was
the first of the conferences held with a view to a compromise
between the royal disputants.’ On the 28th of June the American
ambassador was at the levée at Carlton House, where he learns that
‘the sensibilities of the King are intense, and nothing can ever
reconcile him.’ The same diplomatist then presents to us the
following graphic picture: ‘The day was hot, excessively so for
England. The King seemed to suffer. He remarked upon the heat to
me and others. It is possible that other heat may have aggravated in
him that of the weather. Before he came into the entrée room, from
his closet, —— of the diplomatic corps, taking me gently by the arm,
led me a few steps with him, which brought us into the recess of a
window. “Look!” said he. I looked, and saw nothing but the velvet
lawn covered by trees in the palace gardens. “Look again!” said he. I
did; and still my eye only took in another part of the same scene. “Try
once more,” said he, cautiously raising a finger in the right direction.
—— had a vein of drollery in him. I now for the first time beheld a
peacock displaying his plumage. At one moment he was in full pride,
and displayed it gloriously; at another he would halt, letting it drop,
as if dejected. “Of what does that remind you?” said ——. “Of
nothing,” said I; “Honi soit qui mal y pense!” for I threw the King’s
motto at him, and then added that I was a republican, he a
monarchist, and that if he dreamt of unholy comparisons where
royalty was concerned I would certainly tell upon him, that it might be
reported at his court. He quietly drew off from me, smiling, and I
afterwards saw him slyly take another member of the corps to the
same spot, to show him the same sight.’
Meanwhile, the contending parties in parliament wore about
them the air of men who were called upon to do battle, and who,
while resolved to accomplish their best, would have been glad to
have effected a compromise which, at least, should save the honour
of their principal. As Mr. Wilberforce remarked, there was a mutual
desire to ‘avoid that fatal green bag.’ There were many difficulties in
the way. The Queen, naturally enough, insisted on her name being
restored in the Liturgy; and none of her friends would have
consented for her, nor would she have done so for herself, that she
should reside abroad without being introduced by the British
ambassador to the court of the country in which she might take up
her residence. The government manifested too clearly an intention
not to help her in this respect, for they remarked that, though they
might request the ambassador to present, they could not compel the
court to receive her. They wanted her out of the way, bribed
splendidly to endure an indelible disgrace. She was wise enough, at
least, to perceive that to consent to such a course would be to strip
her of every friend, and to shut against her the door of every court in
Europe.
Mr. Wilberforce hoped to act the ‘Mr. Harmony’ of the crisis, by
bringing forward a motion expressive of the regret of parliament that
the two illustrious adversaries had not been able to complete an
amicable arrangement of their difficulties, and declaring that the
Queen would sacrifice nothing of her good name nor of the
righteousness of her cause, nor be held as shrinking from inquiry, by
consenting to accept the counsel of parliament, and forbearing to
press further the adoption of those propositions on which any
material difference of opinion is yet remaining. The Queen’s especial
advocate, Mr. Brougham, felicitously contrasted the eager desire of
ministers to get rid of her Majesty, by sending her out of the country
with all the pomp, splendour, and ceremonies connected with royalty,
with their meanness in allowing her to come over in a common
packet, and to seek shelter in the house of a private individual. He
added that the only basis on which any satisfactory negotiation could
be carried on with her Majesty was the restoration of her name to the
Liturgy. Mr. Denman, in alluding to the case of Sophia Dorothea,
which had been cited by ministers as precedent wherein they found
authority for omitting the Queen’s name from the Liturgy, remarked
that, ‘As to the case of the Queen of George I., to which allusions
had been made, it was not at all in point. She had been guilty of
certain practices in Hanover which compromised her character, and
was never considered Queen of England. On the continent she lived
under the designation of Princess of Halle; and though the Prince of
Wales had afterwards called her to this country for the purpose of
embarrassing the government of his father, to which he happened to
be opposed, still she was never recognised in any other character
than Electress of Hanover.’ In this statement it will be seen that the
speaker calls her Queen whom he denies to have been accounted
as such, and he adds that the Prince of Wales called her to this
country in his father’s lifetime, when he had no power to do so;
whereas he simply expressed to his friends his determination to
invite her over if she survived his father as Queen-dowager of
England. This invitation he never had the power of making, for his
mother’s demise preceded the decease of his father. Mr. Denman
was far happier in his allusion to a ministerial assertion that the
omission of the Queen’s name from the Liturgy was the act of the
King in his closet. This assertion was at once a meanness and a
falsehood, for, as Mr. Denman remarked, no one knew of any such
thing in this country as ‘the King in his closet.’ Indeed the ministers
were peculiarly unlucky in all they did; for while they asserted that
the omission was never made out of disrespect towards the Queen,
they acknowledged that it never would have been thought of but for
the revelations contained in the fatal green bag as to her Majesty’s
alleged conduct. Finally, the House agreed to Mr. Wilberforce’s
motion.
The announcement of the resolution to which the House of
Commons had come was made to her Majesty, now residing in
Portman Street, in an address conveyed to her by Mr. Wilberforce
and three other members of the Lower House. On this occasion all
the forms of a court were observed. The bearers of the address
appeared in full court dress. The Queen, in a dress of black satin,
with a wreath of laurel shaded with emeralds around her head,
surmounted by a ‘plume of feathers,’ stood in one portion of the little
drawing-room; behind her stood all the ladies of her household, in
the person of Lady Anne Hamilton, and on either side of her Mr.
Brougham and Mr. Denman, her Majesty’s Attorney and Solicitor
Generals, in full-bottomed wigs and silk gowns. As the deputation
approached, the folding doors which divided the members in the
back drawing-room from the Queen and her court in the front
apartment were then thrown open, and the four gentlemen from the
House of Commons knelt on one knee and kissed her Majesty’s
hand. Having communicated to her the resolutions of the House, the
Queen, through the attorney-general, returned an answer of some
length, the substance of which, however, was, that with all her
respect for the House of Commons she could not bind herself to be
governed by its counsel until she knew the purport of the advice. In
short, she yielded nothing, but appealed to the nation. When the
assembled crowd learned the character of the royal reply its delight
was intense, and certainly public opinion was generally in favour of
the Queen and of the course now adopted by her. There was one
thing she and the public too supremely hated, and that was the
formation of a secret committee, formed principally too of ministerial
adherents, and charged with prosecuting the inquiry against her,
without letting her know who were her accusers or of what crimes
she was accused, and without affording her opportunity to procure
evidence to rebut the testimony brought against her. Against such a
proceeding she drew up a petition, which she requested the Lord
Chancellor to present. That eminent official, however, asserting that
he meant no disrespect, excused himself on the ground that he did
not know how to present such a document to the House, and that
there was nothing in the journals which could tend to enlighten him.
The petition, however, the chief prayer in which was that the
Queen’s counsel might be heard at the bar of the House against an
inquiry by secret committee, was presented by Lord Dacre, and the
prayer in question was agreed to.
The request of Mr. Brougham was for a delay of two months,
previous to the inquiry being further prosecuted, in order to leave
time for the assembling of witnesses for the defence—witnesses
whom the Queen was too poor to purchase, and too powerless to
compel to repair to England. Her Majesty’s Attorney-General asked
this the more earnestly as some of the witnesses on the King’s side
were of tainted character, and one of them was an ex-domestic of
the Queen’s, discharged from her service for robbing her of four
hundred napoleons. The learned advocate concluded by expressing
his confidence that the delay of two months would not be considered
too great an indulgence for the purpose of furthering the ends of
justice, and providing that a legal murder should not be committed
on the character of the first subject of the realm. The best point in Mr.
Denman’s speech in support of the request made by his leader was
in the quotation from a judgment delivered by a former lord
chancellor, and which was to this effect—it was delivered with the
eyes of the speaker keenly fixed on those of Lord Eldon—‘A judge
ought to prepare the way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare
His way, by raising valleys and taking down hills, so when there
appeareth on either side a high hand, violent prosecutions, cunning
advantages taken, combination, power, great counsel, then is the
virtue of a judge seen to make inequality equal, that he may plant his
judgment as upon an even ground.’
While the Lords were deliberating on the request for
postponement, Lord Castlereagh was inveighing in the Commons
against the Queen herself, for daring to refuse to yield to the wishes
of parliament, and rejecting the advice to be guided by its counsel.
Such rejection he interpreted as being a sort of insult which no other
member of the House of Brunswick would have ventured to commit.
‘That illustrious individual,’ he said, ‘might repent the step she had
taken.’ Meanwhile, the Commons suspended proceedings till the
course to be decided upon by the Lords was finally taken. In the
latter assembly Earl Grey made a last effort to stay the proceedings
altogether, by moving that the order for the meeting of the secret
committee to consider the papers in the ‘green bag’ should be
discharged. The motion was lost, but an incident in the debate which
arose upon it deserves to be noticed. The omission of the Queen’s
name from the Liturgy had been described as the act of the King in
his closet. Lord Holland now charged the Archbishop of Canterbury
as the adviser of the act; but Lord Liverpool accepted the
responsibility of it for himself and colleagues, as having been
adopted by the King in council, at the ministerial suggestion.
The Lords having resolved to commence proceedings by a
preliminary secret inquiry, the Queen protested against such a
course, but no reply was made to her protest. With the exception of
appearing to return answers to the addresses forwarded to her from
various parts of the country, she withdrew, as much as possible, from
all publicity. Her personal friends, however, were busier than she
required in drawing up projects for her which she could not sanction.
One of these busy advocates thought that she might fittingly
compromise the matter by gaining the restoration of her name in the
Liturgy, being crowned, holding one drawing-room, yearly, at
Kensington Palace, and having her permanent residence at
Hampton Court, with 55,000l. a year to uphold her dignity. The terms
were not illiberal; but if the Queen rejected them, it was, probably,
because she knew they would never be offered. Her own remark
upon them is said to have been, that she did not want a victory
without a battle, but a victory after showing that she had deserved it.
She was the more eager for battle from the fact that the contents
of the green bag were by no means unknown to her. At least, it has
been asserted that she had long held duplicates of some of the
evidence, if not of the report made by the Milan commissioners, and
she was satisfied she could rebut both. She possessed one, and it
was her solitary, advantage in this case. The ministers, if not in so
many words, yet by their proceedings, had stigmatised her as utterly
infamous, and yet they had considered it not beneath them to desire
to enter into negotiations with one whom they considered guilty of all
the implied infamy. The Queen’s rejection of the proposals to
compound ‘the stupendous felony’ raised up for her many a friend in
circles where she had been looked upon, if not as guilty, yet, at best,
as open to very grave suspicion.
The Queen’s health required her not to confine herself within the
narrow limits of her residence in Portman Street. She accordingly
paid one public visit to Guildhall, and occasionally repaired to
Blackheath. It was on her way back from one of these latter
excursions that she honoured Alderman Waithman’s shop with a
visit. The incident is perhaps as well worth noticing as that which
tells of the trip made by the young Queen Mary to the shop of Lady
Gresham, the lady mayoress, who appears to have dealt in millinery.
The city progresses of the Queen did her infinite injury. The very
lowest of the populace, who cared little more for her than as giving
opportunity for a little excitement, were wont on these occasions to
take the horses from her carriage, harness themselves to the
vehicle, and literally drag the Queen of England through the mud of
the metropolis. She could only suffer degradation and ridicule from
such a proceeding, which a little spirit might have prevented. Her
enemies bitterly derided her through their organs in the press. They
expressed an eagerness to get rid of her, and added their
indifference as to whether ‘the alien’ was finally disposed of as a
martyr or as a criminal. On the other hand, her over-zealous
partisans gave utterance to their convictions that there was a project
on foot to murder the Queen. Party spirit never wore so assassin-like
an aspect as it did at this moment. Caroline, it must be added, was
not displeased with these popular ovations. ‘I have derived,’ she
remarked in her reply to the City address, ‘unspeakable consolations
from the zealous and constant attachment of this warm-hearted, just,
and generous people, to live at home with and to cherish whom will
be the chief happiness of the remainder of my days.’ But her chief
occupation now was to look to her defence, for the time had arrived
when her accusers were to speak openly.
 CHAPTER IX.
QUEEN, PEERS, AND PEOPLE.

The secret committee on the Queen’s conduct—Encounter between the

Queen and Princess Sophia—Bill of Pains and Penalties brought into the
House of Lords—The Queen demands to know the charges against her—
Her demand refused—The Queen again petitions—Lord Liverpool’s
speech—The Queen’s indignant message to the Lords—Money spent to
procure witnesses against her—Public feeling against the Italian
witnesses—Dr. Parr’s advice to the Queen—His zealous advocacy of her
cause—Lord Erskine’s efforts in her favour—Her hearty protest against
legal oppression—Gross attack on her in a provincial paper—Cruel
persecution of her—Her sharp philippic against Ministers—Lord John
Russell’s letter to Mr. Wilberforce, and petition to the King—The Queen at
Brandenburgh House—Death of the Duchess of York—Her eccentricities
—Her character—Addresses to the Queen, and her replies.

The secret committee charged with examining the documents in the

sealed bags made their report early in July. This report was to the
effect that the documents contained allegations, supported by the
concurrent testimony of witnesses of various grades in life, which
deeply affected the honour of the Queen, charging her, as they did,
with a ‘continued series of conduct highly unbecoming her Majesty’s
rank and station, and of the most licentious character.’ The
committee reluctantly recommended that the matter should become
the subject of solemn inquiry by legislative proceeding.
The ministers postponed any explanation as to the course to be
adopted by them upon this report until the following day. The Queen
exhibited no symptoms of being daunted by it. She appeared in
public on the evening of the day on which the report was delivered,
and, if cheers could attest her innocence, the vox populi would have
done it that night. As the Queen’s carriage was passing in the vicinity
of Kensington Gate it encountered that bearing the Princess Sophia.
The two cousins passed each other without exchanging a sign of
recognition, and the doughty livery servants of the Princess showed
that they had adopted the prejudices or convictions of their portion of
the royal family by refusing obedience to the commands of the mob,
which had ordered them to uncover as they passed in presence of
the Queen.
On Wednesday, the 5th of July, Lord Liverpool brought in the
ever-famous Bill of Pains and Penalties, a bill of degradation and
divorce. Lord Liverpool had previously protested against a divorce.
Why he now turned to a still more dangerous expedient he explains
in a letter inserted in his Memoirs. ‘In the case of a private individual
the question of divorce is a question of personal relief. The law of
man, not the law of God, says properly in this case, we will not give
you the relief unless by your conduct you are entitled to it. But the
King does not, and cannot, apply for relief as an individual; his
accusation is a public accusation, resting on public grounds. Adultery
in a Queen is a crime against the State. The private offence is
merged in the public crime, and must follow the effect of it. How is it
possible to entertain a charge of recrimination against a King, who in
the eye of the law can do no wrong?’
The Queen demanded, by petition, to be furnished with the
specific charges brought against her, and to be heard by her counsel
in support of that demand. The House refused, and Lord Liverpool
went on with his Bill.
The Queen again interfered by petition, requesting to have the
nature of the charges against her distinctly stated, and to be heard in
support of her request by counsel. These requests were negatived.
Lord Liverpool then, in introducing the bill, did his utmost to save the
King from being unfavourably contrasted in his character of
complainant with the Queen in that of defendant. He alleged that
their Majesties were not before the House as individuals. The parties
concerned were the Queen as accused party and the State! The
question to be considered was whether, supposing the allegations to
be substantiated, impunity was to be extended to guilt, or justice be
permitted to triumph. The bill he thus introduced noticed the various
acts of indiscretion which have been already recorded. These were
the familiarity which existed between herself and her courier, whom
she had ennobled, and in honour of whom she had unauthorisedly
founded an order of chivalry, of which he had been appointed grand
master. The bill further accused her of most scandalous, vicious, and
disgraceful conduct ‘with the said Bergami,’ but was silent as to time
and place. The document concluded by proposing that Caroline
Amelia Elizabeth should be ‘deprived of her rank, rights, and
privileges as Queen, and that her marriage with the King be
dissolved and disannulled to all intents and purposes.’ The bill, in
short, pronounced her infamous. It was the penalty which she paid
for the exercise of much indiscretion. Earl Grey complained of the
want of specification, and asserted her Majesty’s right to be
furnished with the names of witnesses. Lord Liverpool, however,
treated the assertion as folly, and the claim made as unprecedented
and inexpedient.
A copy of the bill was delivered to the Queen by Sir Thomas
Tyrwhitt. She received it not without emotion, and this was
sufficiently great to give a confused tone to her observations on this
occasion. Had the bill, she said, been presented to her a quarter of a
century earlier, it might have served the King’s purpose better. She
added that, as she should never meet her husband again in this
world, she hoped, at least, to do so in the next, where certainly
justice would be rendered her.
To the Lords she sent a message expressive of her indignant
surprise that the bill should assume her as guilty simply upon the
report of a committee before whom not a single witness had been
examined. Her friends continued to harass the government. In the
Commons, Sir Ronald Ferguson attempted, though unsuccessfully,
to obtain information as to the authority for the organising of the
Milan commission for examining spies. That commission, he
intimated, originated with the vice-chancellor, Sir John Leach, and
had cost the country between thirty and forty thousand pounds, for
one half of which sum, he added, Italian witnesses might be
procured who would blast the character of every man and woman in
England.
 The feeling against Italians did not require to be excited. Those
who arrived at Dover to furnish evidence against the Queen were
very roughly treated; and so fearful were the ministers that
something worse might happen to them, that they were, after various
changes of residence in London, transferred to Holland, much to the
disgust of the Dutch, before they were finally cloistered up in Cotton
Garden, at hand to furnish the testimony, for the bringing of which
they received very liberal recompense.
Meanwhile, Dr. Parr, in ponderous sermons, exhorted her
Majesty not to despise the chastening of the Lord; and the Queen’s
devout deportment at divine service was cited by zealous advocates
as evidence in favour of her general propriety.
Indeed the Queen had no more zealous champion than the
almost octogenarian Parr. On the fly-leaf of the Prayer-book in the
reading-desk of his parish church at Hatton he entered (and one can
hardly say of Dr. Parr’s act on this occasion dispar sibi) a stringent
protest against the oppression to which she had been subjected;
adding a conviction entertained by him of her complete innocence,
and expressing a determination, although forbidden to pray for her
by name, to add a prayer for her mentally, after uttering the words in
the Liturgy, ‘all the Royal family.’ In his heart the stout old man
prayed fervently; nor did he confine himself to such service. A friend,
knowing his opinions, his admiration of the Queen, and the friendly
feelings which had long mutually existed between them, earnestly
begged of him not to interfere in her affairs at this conjuncture. Dr.
Parr answered the request by immediately ordering his trunk to be
packed, and by proceeding to London, where he entered on the
office of her Majesty’s chaplain, procured the nomination of the Rev.
M. Fellowes to the same office, and in conjunction with him, and
often alone, wrote those royal replies to popular addresses which are
remarkable for their force, and for the ability with which they are
made to metaphorically scourge the King, without appearing to treat
him with discourtesy.
There was as much zeal, and perhaps more discretion, in those
impartial peers who, on occasion of Lord Liverpool moving the
second reading of the Bill for the 17th of August, insisted on the
undoubted right of the Queen, as an accused party, to be made
acquainted with the names of the witnesses who had come over to
charge her with infamy. Lord Erskine was particularly urgent and
impressive on this point, but all to no purpose, except the extracting
an assurance from Lord Chancellor Eldon that the accused should
have, at a fitting season, a proper opportunity to sift the character of
every witness as far as possible. Lord Erskine repeatedly
endeavoured to obtain the full measure of justice for the accused
which he demanded. The Queen herself entered a hearty protest
against the legal oppression, and further begged by petition that, as
the names of the witnesses against her were withheld, she might at
least be furnished with a specification of the times and places, when
and where she was said to have acted improperly. The request was
characterised by Lord Eldon as ‘perfectly absurd,’ seeing that the
Queen could make no use of the information, if she intended, as
declared by her, to defend her case at the early period named, of the
17th of August. The reply was harsh, insulting, and illogical.
But to harshness and insult she became inured by daily
experience. It may be safely said that, if such a drama had to be
enacted in our own days, the press would certainly not distinguish
itself now exactly as it did then. Party spirit might be as strong, but
there would be more refinement in the expression of it. And
assuredly, not even a provincial paper would say of a person before
trial as a Western journal said of the Queen—that she was as much
given to drunkenness as to other vices, and that it was ridiculous to
hold up as an innocent victim a woman who, ‘if found on our
pavement, would be committed to Bridewell and whipped.’
But ministers themselves were not on a bed of roses. They were
exceedingly embarrassed by the Queen’s announcement that she
intended to be present every day in the House of Lords during the
progress of what was now properly called ‘The Queen’s Trial.’ Their
anger, too, was excited at the sharp philippics against them inserted
in her Majesty’s replies to the addresses presented to her. In those
replies the passages complained of wounded more than those
against whom they were pointed; and the authors of them had, no
doubt, some mirth over sentences intended to spoil it in the breasts
of ministers charged with rebelliously seeking to dethrone their lawful
Queen. The royal replies, too, were equally, but not so directly,
severe against those former counsellors and advocates of her
Majesty who were now arrayed on the side of her Majesty’s enemy.
These replies were, of course, not censured by the ministerial
opponents in either House of Parliament. The addresses which
called them forth, however, did not escape reproach from this
quarter. Lord John Russell, in a letter to Mr. Wilberforce, does not
indeed go so far as reproach. He says: ‘I regret, though I cannot
severely blame, the language of many of the addresses that have
been presented to the Queen.’
Lord John acknowledged the political nullity of the Whigs at this
time, but he held that the Wilberforce party in the Commons were
sufficiently powerful to have successfully resisted the scandal which
the Government had brought upon the kingdom. ‘In your hands, sir,’
he says, ‘is perhaps the fate of this country. The future historian will
ask whether it was right to risk the welfare of England—her boasted
constitution, her national power—on the event of an inquiry into the
conduct of the Princess of Wales in her villa upon the Lake of Como?
From the majority which followed you in the House of Commons, he
will conclude you had the power to prevent the die being thrown. He
will ask if you wanted the inclination.’
To this letter Lord John Russell appended a form of petition to
the King, which may not uncourteously be termed the petition of the
powerless Whig statesman. This petition smartly and smartingly
complimented his Majesty upon his liberality in offering to allow his
Queen fifty thousand a year, and to introduce her to a foreign court,
at a time when he pretended to know that she was, allegedly,
perfectly worthless, as woman, wife, and mother. With the domestic
broils of King and Queen Lord John would not interfere; but, the King
having made of them an affair of state, the ‘humble petition’ informs
his Majesty that he has been exceedingly ill-advised. With excellent
spirit does Lord John place upon record his abhorrence of enacting
laws to suit a solitary case—laws ‘which at once create the offence,
regulate the proof, decide upon the evidence, and invent the
punishment.’ He asks if the Queen will escape from justice in the
event of the bill not passing? Are the ministers afraid lest she may so
defraud justice?—why, ‘that the Queen has not fled from justice is
not only the admission, but forms one of the chief charges, of her
prosecutors.’ Her prosecution, then, will not serve the State. Can the
revelation of her alleged iniquity at Como or Athens serve or
influence public morals in England? What is the situation of the
Queen? asks Lord John, who thus replies to his own query:
‘Separated from her husband during the first year of her marriage,
she has been forced out of that circle of domestic affections which
alone are able to keep a wife holy and safe from evil. For the period
to which the accusation extends she has been also removed from
the control of public opinion—the next remaining check the world can
afford on female behaviour.’ Lord John perhaps makes a low
estimate of female virtue when he thus concludes that women cease
to be ‘holy and safe from evil’ when they cease to have a share in
domestic affections or to be controlled by public opinion. There is
more sly humour in what follows than there is of correctness in the
noble lord’s estimation of female virtue. The drawer-up of the petition
reminds the King that what most distresses him is ‘the uncrowning a
royal head without necessity. We see much to alarm us in the
example, nothing to console us in the immediate benefit.’ Not, says
the petitioner, slyly, that we do not recognise the right of parliament
to alter the succession to the crown. ‘None respect more than we do
the Act of Settlement which took away the crown from its hereditary
successors and gave it to the House of Brunswick;’ and, as the writer
alludes to the possibility of the new subject of strife bringing the
country to the verge of a civil war, he of course intimates that
parliament may again be called upon to regulate the succession. The
sum of the petition is to let the Queen alone. ‘From her future
conduct your Majesty and the nation will be enabled to judge
whether the reports from Milan were well founded, or whether they
were the offspring of curiosity and malice.’ The prayer of the petition,
therefore, is that parliament be prorogued, and ‘thus end all
proceedings against the Queen.’
Of course this petition was really a political pamphlet, introduced
for no other purpose but the exposition of certain opinions. The
Queen’s replies to the popular addresses borrowed something of the
tone of this document, and were partly sarcastic, partly serious, in
regretting that an impartial tribunal was not to be found on this
occasion in the House of Lords.
Her Majesty now once more changed her residence from
Portman Street to Brandenburgh House, the old suburban residence
of the Margravine of Anspach, on the banks of the Thames, near
Hammersmith, where watch and ward were nightly kept by volunteer
sentinels from among some of the more enthusiastic inhabitants of
the vicinity. The distance, however, was too great to enable her
Majesty to repair conveniently to the House of Lords when her trial
should be in progress. The widow of Sir Philip Francis had
compassion upon her, and made her an offer, promptly accepted, of
the widow’s mansion in St. James’s Square. It was next to that of her
great enemy, Lord Castlereagh; and to reach the House of Lords she
would daily have to pass Carlton House, the residence of the
husband who was so blindly bent upon consigning her to infamy.
In the midst of these preparations for a great event died a
princess as unfortunate as Caroline, but one who bore her trials with
more wisdom. The Duchess of York, the wife of the second son of
Queen Charlotte, died on Friday, the 6th of August. Her married life
had been unhappy, and every day of it was a disgrace to her
profligate, unprincipled, and good-tempered husband. She endured
the sorrows which were of his inflicting with a silent dignity and some
eccentricity. In her seclusion at Oatlands this amiable, patient, and
much-loved lady passed a brief career, marked by active
beneficence. Her blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexion are still
favourite themes of admiration with those who have reason to
gratefully remember her. A great portion of her income was
expended in founding and maintaining schools, encouraging benefit
societies, and relieving the poor and distressed. But her
benevolence had an eccentric side, and the indulgence of it was the
only indulgence she allowed herself. She loved the brute creation,
and had an especial admiration for dogs. Of these she supported a
perfect colony; and daily might her canine friends, of every species
and in considerable numbers, be seen taking their airing in the park,
often with their benevolent hostess leading the way and taking
delight in witnessing their gambols. She, perhaps, was the more
attached to them because she had been so harshly used by man;
and a touch of misanthropy was probably the basis of her regard for
animals. The progeny of her established favourites were boarded out
among the villagers, and in the park was a cemetery solely devoted
as the burial-ground of her quadruped friends. They rested beneath
small tombstones, which bore the names, age, and characters of the
canine departed. In these things may be seen the weak side of her
character; but it was a weakness that might be easily pardoned. Her
character had its firm, and perhaps humorous, side. She had
patronised a party of strolling actors, and sent her foreign servants,
who could comprehend little, to listen to the moan of Shakspeare
murdered in a barn. Shortly after, an earnest and itinerant Wesleyan
hired the same locality, and the Duchess ordered the household
down to listen to the sermon. The foreigners among them pleaded
their ignorance of the language as an excuse for not going. ‘No, no,’
said the Duchess; ‘you were ready enough to go to the play, and you
shall also go to the preaching. I am going myself;’—and in the barn
at Weybridge the official successor of John Wesley expounded
Scripture to the lineal successor of Frederick the Great.
She had not the spirit of Caroline, and was all the happier for it.
The latter, indeed, was more harshly tried, but she in some degree
provoked the trial, and was now suffering the consequences of the
provocation. The Queen gave a few days to retirement, in
consequence of the death of the Duchess; and, this duty performed,
she was again in public, working with energy and determination to
accomplish the restoration of a name which had been tarnished by
her own indiscretion. And indiscretion is perhaps one of the most
ruinous ingredients in a character. It is a torch in the hand of the
careless, firing the very garments of the bearer.
The addresses to the Queen now became greater in number and
stronger in language. The replies to them also became more
energetic and menacing in expression. They were still popularly
ascribed to Dr. Parr, and, from whomsoever proceeding, the author
very well kept in view the personage for whom and the
circumstances under which he was speaking. Thus, to the