Privy Councillors were, the Dukes of York and Clarence; the Duke of Wellington; Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Harrowby, Westmoreland, Sidmouth, and Londonderry; one or two Bishops; several of the Judges; Mr. Tierney, Mr. Peel, &c. The King's Attorney and Solicitor General, Messrs. Brougham and Denman, and Dr. Lushington, who were in attendance, were called in. The clerk read the order of the Council, that her Majesty should be heard by counsel, in compliance with the prayer of one of her memorials, at 10 o'clock on that morning.

Mr. Brougham addressed their Lordships at considerable length, adducing many historical facts, to prove that the Queen of England possessed the legal and constitutional right of being crowned. He resumed his argument on the following day. After the learned gentleman had finished, Mr. Denman was next heard in support of the claim, and continued speaking until nearly two o'clock. The arguments of both her Majesty's advocates were confined to the usage; and they produced eight instances of joint coronations since the conquest, while they admitted, in the same period, five cases of kings crowned alone, with wives living at the time of the respective coronations. The Council assembled again a few days afterwards, when the Attorney General rose to address the Court, and contended that so far from ancient usage being in favour of the right, as maintained by her Majesty's counsel, all historical evidence gave a flat denial to the presumption. That there could be no right in the case he thought evident, because it had never been mentioned by any writer on the laws of the country, nor by any authority ever engaged in considering or discussing the privileges and immunities appertaining to queens consort. If, as had been contended, the coronation of a queen was an independent and substantive ceremony, it must have taken place in every instance, which was not the fact. The coron ation of a king was accompanied by political acts, while no such acts belonged to a queen's coronation; every evidence

tended to prove that however usual it might have been to crown the queens of England, they had no right to demand the performance of that ceremony, which was plainly dependent on the will of the sovereign. The Attorney General having concluded his remarks, the Solicitor General followed, and spoke in opposition to the claim about three quarters of an hour. Mr. Brougham was heard in reply, and after a speech of two hours, strangers were excluded, and the Council deliberated a short time. They once more adjourned for three days.

They finally decided against the Queen's claim to be crowned. Against this decision her Majesty entered a solemn protest.

Prior to the publication of her Majesty's protest, she wrote to Lord Sidmouth, on the 11th of July, stating, "that she considered it necessary to inform his Lordship that it was her intention to be present at the coronation, and, therefore, demanded that a suitable place might be prepared for her reception." Lord Sidmouth's answer simply referred her Majesty to Lord Liverpool's reply to her letter of the 5th of May last, "that it was not his Majesty's pleasure to comply with the application contained in her Majesty's last letter."

On Monday, the 16th, Lord Hood wrote a letter to the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl Marshal of England, informing him that it was her Majesty's intention to be at Westminster Abbey at half past 8 o'clock on Thursday morning, and requesting him to have persons in attendance to conduct her to her seat. The Duke of Norfolk, in his answer, stated, that he was not acting in his character of Earl Marshal, and referred her Majesty to his deputy, Lord Howard of Effingham.

On the 19th, (July,) the morning of the coronation, every one was anxious to learn what course her Majesty would pursue. It was scarcely expected she would make her appearance. However, soon after 6 o'clock, her Majesty came in her royal

carriage of state, drawn by six horses, accompanied by another carriage, in which was Lord Hood.

In her Majesty's carriage sat Lady A. Hamilton and Lady Hood. Her Majesty had slept at her town house in South Audley-street, and had ordered her carriages by 6 o'clock.

The following account has been published by authority of her Majesty:

"Her Majesty set out from her house in South Audleystreet, and proceeding through the Parks to Westminster Abbey, went to Dean's Yard, where her Majesty got out of her carriage, in expectation of being allowed to enter, but was refused at two doors of entrance; and her carriage having drawn off, her Majesty was obliged to wait in the passage till it was called back, when her Majesty proceeded towards Poet's Corner, and again got out of her carriage in Old [New] Palace-yard, and sought admittance by two temporary doors, which, upon her Majesty's approach, were closed in her face; after which, some of the people pointed out the opening to the platform. Upon ascending this, her Majesty was again obstructed by the police officers, till an officer (it is believed of the Guards) politely allowed her Majesty to cross the platform, and her Majesty walked from thence to Old Palace Yard, and entered first the passage to Cotton Garden; after which, her Majesty proceeded along the covered way to Poet's Corner, and when arrived at the door was refused admittance without tickets; upon which Lord Hood produced one, and was informed it would admit one person; upon which Lord Hood observed, he did not suppose the Queen required a ticket of admission; to which one of the persons appointed for the admission of the company, observed, he did not know the Queen, and positively forbade her Majesty from entering; and one of the Poor Knights of Windsor came up, and said there was no place for her Majesty. Thus, finding every effort to gain admittance proved ineffectual, her Majesty immediately returned to her carriage, and proceeded through Whitehall, Pall-mall, and St. James's

street, Piccadilly, to her house, attended by an immense concourse of people. Although the different persons at the Abbey were all under orders to say they did not know her Majesty, it is to be observed that her Majesty came in the royal state carriage, and that the Guards, wherever she passed, presented arms."

On the 20th her Majesty wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which she informed him of her desire to be crowned some days after the King, and before the arrangements were done away with, so that there might be no additional expence. The Archbishop, in his answer, represented that he could take no part in the ceremony, except in consequence of orders from the Sovereign.

The Queen's disappointments and vexations were now drawing to a close. In less than a fortnight after the coronation of the King her Majesty was taken dangerously ill. Her complaint is said to have been an obstruction of the bowels, which was speedily followed by inflammatory symptoms. On Thursday, the 2d August, she was attended by three physicians, of whom the senior was Dr. Maton, so much distinguished by his skilful and zealous care of the late Duke of Kent. In the course of that day her Majesty was copiously bled; she passed a quiet night, but her symptoms remained the same. The following day she was immersed for about a quarter of an hour in a warm bath, which moderated the pain, but in other respects was unavailing; connected with the inflammation of the bowels, was a nausea at the stomach, which repelled both food and medicine. Another physician, Dr. Ainslie, was now called in, and her Majesty's legal advisers also attended to assist in the arrangement of her property and other legal matters; and her will was then drawn

up.

She passed an indifferent night, but towards the morning of Saturday obtained some tranquil sleep, and in the course of the day was able to keep some gruel on her stomach. She slept great part of this day, which induced some observers to believe that an inward mortification had commenced. She,

however, continued tolerably easy, and passed that night better than the preceding one; but Sunday produced no apparent change in her symptoms. In the course of this day Dr, Baillie was sent for, by express, from Gloucestershire. During the night of Sunday she had some relief, and, for the first time, hopes began to be entertained that she had passed the crisis of her disorder. In the morning of Monday her state was certainly more favourable than it had been. At half past two o'clock on that day Dr. Baillie arrived, and immediately held a consultation with the four other physicians. Her Majesty had been bled with leeches, and found herself able to retain on her stomach a little arrowroot, and some medicine: she had also, at her own request, been raised from her bed, and was seated in an arm chair, when she was first seen by Dr. Baillie. Still her Majesty was extremely weak and feeble from her long and acute sufferings, and the small portion of sustenance that she had been able to take; and when she spoke (which she did, relative to the disposal of her property, and other matters), she was very faint, and felt it necessary to be revived from time to time by a smelling bottle. The hopes that were entertained during the latter part of Monday, however, were rapidly weakened in the course of the night, and had entirely vanished on Tuesday morning, the 7th, when it was evident that her Majesty, after a sleepless night, had suffered a relapse, or rather, that the favourable appearances of the day had been merely delusive.

At this time the Queen herself gave up all hope, and declared she could not survive the day. About noon she complained of violent pains in the abdomen, which were shortly followed by convulsion: a strong opiate medicine was now administered, which allayed the pain for a moment, but produced for an hour or two a disposition to doze. About three o'clock the pains returned, attended with the most alarming symptoms. Every means that skill and attention could devise were now employed by the physicians; but it was