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, 10s., bronze, 5s. During the procession to the Abbey the weather was fine, and the sight a brilliant one; but, soon Coronation Day. 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 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 Kentish Lady 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 "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 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.' "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 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 "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 "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 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. Doubtless many of my readers remember those shutters, which were always down, and were not removed until after his funeral on November 18, 1852. |