Chapter VIII

1831.

Scramble for coronation medals--Bad weather--Fireworks in Hyde
Park--Absence from the ceremony of the Duchess of Kent and
Princess Victoria--The _Times_ thereon--Story of a Great
Seal--Reform Bill rejected by the Lords--Reform riots in the
country and London--Windows of Apsley House broken by the mob.

There was a regular scramble for the coronation medals, and one accident is recorded as having happened to Alderman Sir Claudius Hunter. He made an effort to catch some of the Coronation medals which were cast among the company. The other aldermen, however, were as anxious as he was to get hold of the medal, and, in the _melée_, Sir Claudius received a cut under the eye, and the blood streamed down. It happened that the famous surgeon, Sir Astley Cooper, was close by, and he attended to the wounded man; but it was remarked that none of the aldermen got a medal in the scramble. Possibly, a medal so obtained, may have a fictitious value, as a memento, but they could be obtained at the Mint, or at appointed places in Ludgate Hill, or Panton Street, Haymarket, at the following prices: gold, £5, silver, 10_s._, bronze, 5_s._

During the procession to the Abbey the weather was fine, and the sight a brilliant one; but, soon after one o'clock, a very heavy rain descended; the wind, too, blew with great violence, and occasioned rattling and tearing among the canvas canopies of the newly erected stands. It ceased for a short time, between two and three, when it broke out afresh, and was particularly lively when the ceremony was over, at half-past three. It quite spoilt the return procession, some of the carriages driving straight away, and those that fell into rank had their windows up. The general public were in sorry plight, as we see in the accompanying illustration--

Some of the lieges on their return."]

In spite of the weather, London was brilliantly illuminated, and the theatres and Vauxhall Gardens were thrown open free. There was a display of fireworks in Hyde Park, at which many were more or less hurt by the falling rocket-sticks, six so seriously as to have to be taken to St. George's Hospital. Throughout the country the festivity was universal.

One little thing marred the universality. The Duchess of Kent was not present at the coronation, neither was the Princess Victoria. It was an open secret that the King and the Duchess were not on friendly terms, but it was thought very bad taste on her part not to be present; this was freely commented on, as we see in--

The Duchess is saying to the weeping Princess, "Say no more about the Coronation, child. I have my _particular reasons_ for not going to it."

The _Times_ must needs turn virtuously indignant on the occasion, and lectured the Royal Duchess thus[8]--

[Footnote 8: _Times_, September 7, 1831, p. 3, col. 1.]

"In the midst of the general interest and affectionate zeal
excited by the sublime ceremony of to-morrow, of a constitutional
monarch pledging himself to a free people to guard their rights
and privileges, it has been remarked, with very general surprise,
that the Duchess of Kent and the Princess Victoria are the only
members of the Royal family, old or young, who are not to be
present at the Coronation. It is with deep regret that we have
learned that her Royal Highness has refused to attend! Yes, has
refused to attend! and that her absence on this occasion, is in
pursuance of a systematic opposition on the part of her Royal
Highness to all the wishes and all the feelings of the present
King. Now, the presence, or absence of the Duchess herself, is a
matter of comparative indifference--it is merely disrespectful;
but that of the Princess Victoria, which must, as to its
immediate cause, be imputed to her mother, cannot fail of being
considered by the public as indecent and offensive. We should be
glad to know who are the advisers of this misguided lady? Who can
have dared to counsel her, the widow of a mediatized German
Prince, whose highest ambition never could have contemplated the
possibility of an alliance with the Blood Royal of England, to
oppose the Sovereign to whom she is bound by so many ties of
gratitude? Her Royal Highness must have been acting under a
well-grounded confidence in the indulgence and forbearance of his
Majesty, or an entire ignorance of the authority of the Crown.
The Constitution has limited the political power of the King, but
has left it uncontrolled and despotic over the members of his own
family; and it cannot be disputed that she who is ignorant of the
respect which is due to the Crown, is unfit to form the mind and
superintend the education of the infant who is destined to wear
it.

"We could mention some curious facts, which, for the present, we
shall abstain from doing. We would rather admonish than expose,
and shall rejoice if these monitory hints be not thrown away. No
monarch has more endeared himself to his subjects than William
IV.; and the Duchess of Kent is grossly mistaken if she thinks to
ingratiate herself with the people of this country by opposition
to the will and disrespect to the power of the King."

But the _Times_ sang another tune in its issue of September 10th--

"In an affair of great delicacy, to which we have already
alluded, our wish would be, if we might be permitted, to put the
public in possession of the whole truth, and then let the matter
drop, for we know that protracted discussions are apt to excite
resentments which did not, at first, exist. It was impossible
that the absence of the Duchess of Kent, and of the Princess
Victoria, her daughter, from the Coronation, should have escaped
notice; we, therefore, stated what the fact would be, and
assigned some causes for it. We now hope to close the account in
a manner which may suppress rising animosities. We have received
two versions of the affair, and both, if we look to the quarters
from which they come, entitled to the highest consideration.

"The first says, 'Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent wrote to
the Duke of Norfolk, as Hereditary Earl Marshal, to know how she
was to go to the Abbey herself, and what arrangement had been
made for the Princess Victoria. The answer was: that his Majesty
had signified his pleasure that her Royal Highness should attend
in her place as a dowager Princess and Peeress, and that the
Princess Victoria should go under the care of the Landgravine and
the Princess Augusta, and be attended by the Duchess of
Northumberland, in the Royal pew. This answer having been
received, so far was her Royal Highness from declining
attendance, that she ordered her robes, and it was understood by
all the Royal family that she would be there. The King, never
doubting but that the Duchess would be at the Coronation, ordered
a letter to be written to her to know whom she would name to
carry her Coronet: to this, no answer was received. After waiting
some time, his Majesty ordered another letter to be written in
his own name, and to this, an answer did come, from Sir John
Conroy, speaking of her attendance as uncertain, but saying that,
if she did attend, she would have her coronet borne by Lord
Morpeth.'

"Our other account agrees, in the chief facts, with the
preceding; but adds, 'Her Royal Highness wrote to express her
ready compliance with the arrangement made as to the places
selected for herself and her daughter, and her desire to be
present at the ceremony, and to mark her dutiful regard to his
Majesty; but it was, afterwards, considered inexpedient to
interrupt the benefit which the Princess Victoria's health was
receiving by her residence near the sea; and, upon this ground,
and, also, upon the expense which would attend the Duchess of
Kent's leaving the Isle of Wight, and removing all her
establishment to town, so as to appear in state at the
Coronation, his Majesty was pleased, in the most gracious, and
the kindest manner, to dispense with the attendance of the
Duchess of Kent, and the Princess, her daughter.'

"Upon these two accounts we may observe, that the latter takes no
notice of the delay in answering the letters written by his
Majesty's direction; and the former omits all mention of the
King's graciously dispensing with the attendance of the
illustrious personages at the Coronation. It may seem singular
that the Duchess should first apply to know the place assigned to
herself and the Princess, and, after these were known, decline
attendance, if there were no dissatisfaction. But, perhaps, some
cause for alarm might have sprung up, on the score of her
daughter's health. The expense was no greater after the question
about places was answered than before. However, his Majesty's
acquiescence in the reasons alleged for absence, may serve to
satisfy the objections of every other person.

"The claims of an heiress presumptive are not recognised, so far
as we know, in any part of the Constitution; and to consolidate
any pretensions of this hypothetical nature into an opposition to
his Majesty, as it would be madness, we feel very well convinced,
cannot be contemplated by her Royal Highness."

And with this episode we will close the coronation.

About this time Greville tells a little story of a Council Meeting.

"September 3.--This King is a queer fellow. Our Council was,
principally, for a new Great Seal, and to deface the old Seal.
The Chancellor claims the old one as his perquisite. I had
forgotten the hammer,[9] so the King said, 'My Lord, the best
thing I can do, is to give you the Seal, and tell you to take it,
and do what you please with it.' The Chancellor said, 'Sir, I
believe there is some doubt whether Lord Lyndhurst ought not to
have half of it, as he was Chancellor at the time of your
Majesty's accession.' 'Well,' said the King, 'then, I will judge
between you, like Solomon; here' (turning the Seal round and
round), 'now do you cry heads or tails?' We all laughed, and the
Chancellor said, 'Sir, I take the bottom part.' The King opened
the two compartments of the Seal, and said, 'Now, then, I employ
you as Ministers of taste. You will send for Bridge, my
silversmith, and desire him to convert the two halves, each into
a salver, with my arms on one side, and yours on the other, and
Lord Lyndhurst's the same; and you will take one, and give him
the other, and both keep them as presents from me.'"

[Footnote 9: Defacing an old Great Seal is a very perfunctory performance. The two halves are slightly tapped with a hammer, and the seal is, by a fiction, supposed to be so defaced as to be incapable of being used again.]

We, lately, have heard a great deal against the House of Lords, even to its being abolished, but this was as nothing compared to the feeling excited by the Reform Bill. At half-past five on the morning of September 22nd, the Bill was read a third time, and passed, in the House of Commons, by a majority of 113. It then went to the Lords, and on the second reading Lord Wharncliffe moved, "That the Bill be read that day six months." The Lords had five days' debate upon the Bill, and rejected it on October 7th by a majority of 41.

This raised the ire of the Reform party; and, as was the custom of the age, riots ensued. The _Annual Register_ gives the following condensed account of them:--

"The rejection of the Reform Bill caused some partial
disturbances in the country. At Derby, a mob, on Saturday and
Sunday, the 8th and 9th, committed several outrages, attacked the
city gaol, set the prisoners at liberty, and then proceeded to
the county gaol, where they were resisted and foiled in the
attempt: on Monday evening quiet was restored, but not before
several lives were lost, and many persons wounded. One young man,
son of Mr. Haden, surgeon, was killed by the mob.

"At Nottingham, the castle, which belongs to the Duke of
Newcastle, was burnt down; Colwick Hall, the seat of John
Musters, Esq., was broke into, the furniture destroyed (including
several valuable pictures, particularly Sir Joshua Reynolds'
whole length of Mrs. M.), and the house set on fire, which,
however, was soon extinguished. A factory at Beeston, belonging
to Mr. Lowe, was burnt down. The House of Correction was
attacked, but, the 15th Hussars arriving, the mob dispersed;
fifteen of them were made prisoners. Some trifling disturbances
took place at Loughborough.

"In the metropolis, also, fears were entertained; on the 10th the
inhabitants of Bond Street were thrown into a panic, by a report
that a mob of several thousand persons were coming, with the
determination of breaking all windows where the shutters were not
closed. Although it was only six o'clock, every shop was
instantly closed, and the street presented, from one end to the
other, a very dark and gloomy appearance. In Regent Street and
some other of the great thoroughfares, the shutters were closed;
and where there was property, more particularly valuable, boards
were nailed across. Several Reform meetings were held on the same
day, and various stratagems were had recourse to, by their
promoters, to induce the shopkeepers and other inhabitants, to
make a display of revolutionary emblems.

"On the 11th, as three policemen were coming through St. James's
Square, with a prisoner in their custody, the crowd surrounded
them, and rescued the prisoner. The constables took out their
staves, but were pushed along until they arrived at Waterloo
Place, where they were joined by a party of police. At the corner
of Waterloo Place, the crowd took advantage of a heap of
macadamised stones, which they flung at the police in every
direction, so that the latter were glad to make their escape.

"Between two and three o'clock, a large assemblage took place in
Hyde Park. Stones were thrown at Apsley House, and a few squares
of glass were broken. When some of the Duke of Wellington's
servants presented themselves at the windows, great hissing and
hooting followed, and immediately afterwards, a shower of stones
was thrown at the house, and almost every square of glass in it
was demolished. Some policemen, who were upon the spot at the
time, endeavoured to drive the crowd out of the Park, but violent
resistance was made, and the constables were, ultimately,
compelled to make a precipitate retreat, and take shelter in his
grace's mansion. Notice of these proceedings having been given to
St. James's police station, a large party of the C and T
divisions, headed by a superintendent and four inspectors,
proceeded with all possible haste to Hyde Park, where they formed
in a body under the statue. They had not been there many minutes
before they were saluted with several showers of stones. These
attacks were, for a time, borne with exemplary patience; but, at
length, a large crowd having collected in front of the Duke of
Wellington's house, the police, in number about 200, sallied
forth, and, in an instant, the rabble ran in all directions.
Several of the ringleaders were taken into custody, and conveyed
to Knightsbridge barracks.

"After the mob had been driven out of Hyde Park, they proceeded
to the mansion of Earl Dudley, and commenced throwing stones at
the windows; but a strong body of police, who had been stationed
in his lordship's stables, suddenly rushed upon them with their
staves, and the mob were beaten off.

"Some desperate attacks were made upon the new police by
regularly organised gangs of pickpockets, and several constables
were very severely beaten. At the corner of Charles Street, St.
James's Square, some young thieves were taken into custody by
three of the police, who were detached from the main body; the
prisoners were rescued, and the constables were obliged to make
their escape. One of the inspectors of the C division, who was
parading in Pall Mall in private clothes, was recognised by some
of the rabble, who kicked him and beat him in so cruel a manner,
that he narrowly escaped with his life.

After the _Levée_ was over, a vast number of the lower orders
assembled in the park, awaiting the arrival of some of the
Anti-Reform peers. About five o'clock, the Marquis of
Londonderry, accompanied by a friend, made his appearance on
horseback, and was proceeding to the House of Lords. Before the
Marquis was aware, he found himself in the midst of between 4000
and 5000 persons. At first, he was not recognised, and he was
proceeding with apparent security, when, on a sudden, a voice
exclaimed, 'There goes the Marquis of Londonderry.' In an instant
he was assailed with pebbles. Several of the missiles struck his
lordship, which so enraged him, that he pulled up his horse, and
solemnly declared that he would shoot at the first individual who
again dared to molest him. His lordship accompanied his
declaration by pulling out a brace of pistols. This, for a time,
so intimidated the mob, that they gave way in a slight degree;
and, after the Marquis had conversed for a few seconds with a
gentleman on horseback near him, he rode off towards the Horse
Guards. Thither the mob followed; and, believing that his
lordship only endeavoured to intimidate them, they commenced
another attack. The showers of stones were now thicker than ever,
and one stone, hurled with considerable force, struck the noble
Marquis immediately over his right temple, cut through his hat,
and inflicted a serious wound on his head, which rendered his
lordship nearly insensible. The military here interposed, and the
Marquis was placed in a hackney coach, and conveyed home."

The Rev. G. R. Gleig, in his "Life of Arthur, Duke of Wellington" (edit. 1864, p. 360), gives the following account of the window-breaking at Apsley House:--

"The Duke was not in his place in the House of Lords on that
memorable day when the King went down to dissolve
Parliament.[10] He had been in attendance, for some time
previously, at the sick bed of the Duchess, and she expired just
as the Park guns began to fire. He was, therefore, ignorant of
the state into which London had fallen, till a surging crowd
swept up from Westminster to Piccadilly, shouting and yelling,
and offering violence to all whom they suspected of being
Anti-Reformers. By-and-by, volleys of stones came crashing
through the windows at Apsley house, breaking them to pieces and
doing injury to more than one valuable picture in the gallery.
The Duke bore the outrage as well as he could, but determined
never to run a similar risk again. He guarded his windows, as
soon as quiet was restored, with iron shutters, and left them
there to the day of his death, a standing memento of a nation's
ingratitude."

[Footnote 10: I cannot reconcile these dates. The King prorogued Parliament on October 20th, whilst there is no doubt that the attack on Apsley House took place on the 11th, for it is mentioned in the parliamentary reports of the 12th.]

Doubtless many of my readers remember those shutters, which were always down, and were not removed until after his funeral on November 18, 1852.