The Letters of Queen Victoria Volume I Part 117

[Footnote 18: The allusion is to a hoax played on the Premier, by a presentation made to him of a piece of the then novel fabric, velveteen, stamped with a free-trade design. Peel afterwards wrote that he was unaware that the specimen bore "any allusion to any matters which are the subject of public controversy."]

[Footnote 19: William Belsham (1752-1827) wrote, in twelve volumes, _A History of Great Britain to the Conclusion of the Peace of Amiens in 1802_.]

[Footnote 20: In the _Quarterly Review_, by Lady Eastlake.]

_Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria._

WHITEHALL (_4th March 1843_). (_Sunday morning._)

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs leave to acquaint your Majesty that the prisoner MacNaghten was acquitted last night, after a trial which lasted two days, upon the ground of insanity.

The fuller account of the evidence which Sir Robert Peel has seen is on the accompanying newspaper.

The only other information which has reached Sir Robert Peel is contained in a note (enclosed) from Mr Maule, the solicitor to the Treasury, who conducted the prosecution. The three Judges[21] appear to have concurred in opinion, that the evidence of insanity was so strong as to require a verdict of acquittal--and the Chief Justice advised the Jury to find that verdict without summing up the evidence or delivering any detailed charge upon the facts of the case and the law bearing upon them.

It is a lamentable reflection that a man may be at the same time so insane as to be reckless of his own life and the lives of others, and to be p.r.o.nounced free from moral responsibility, and yet capable of preparing for the commission of murder with the utmost caution and deliberation, and of taking every step which shall enable him to commit it with certainty.

[Footnote 21: Chief Justice Tindal, and Justices Williams and Coleridge.]

_Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria._

WHITEHALL, _10th March 1843._

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs leave to acquaint your Majesty that the House of Commons was occupied last night with the attack upon Lord Ellenborough for the Somnauth Proclamation.[22]

The motion was made by Mr Vernon Smith.[23] The resolution proposed condemned the Proclamation as _unwise_, _indecorous_ and _reprehensible_. Mr Vernon Smith was followed by Mr Emerson Tennent,[24] one of the Secretaries to the Board of Controul.

Mr Macaulay next spoke, and condemned the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in a speech of great bitterness and great ability.

The motion was negatived by a majority of 242 to 157.

The minority included Lord Ashley, Sir Robert Inglis, and six other gentlemen, who generally support your Majesty's servants.

The debate was a very animated one, with a strong infusion of Party zeal.

[Footnote 22: See _ante_, p. 445. (Ch. XI, 'The Gates of Somnauth')]

[Footnote 23: Robert Vernon Smith (1800-1873), afterwards President of the Board of Control, created Lord Lyveden in 1859.]

[Footnote 24: James Emerson (1804-1869), afterwards Sir James Emerson Tennent, M.P. for Belfast, author of _Letters from the aegean_, etc.]

[Pageheading: CRIMINAL INSANITY]

_Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _12th March 1843._

The Queen returns the paper of the Lord Chancellor's to Sir Robert Peel with her best thanks.

The law may be perfect, but how is it that whenever a case for its application arises, it proves to be of no avail? We have seen the trials of Oxford and MacNaghten conducted by the ablest lawyers of the day--Lord Denman, Chief Justice Tindal, and Sir Wm. Follett,[25]--and _they allow_ and _advise_ the Jury to p.r.o.nounce the verdict of _Not Guilty_ on account of _Insanity_,--whilst _everybody_ is morally _convinced_ that both malefactors were perfectly conscious and aware of what they did! It appears from this, that the force of the law is entirely put into the Judge's hands, and that it depends merely upon his charge whether the law is to be applied or not. Could not the Legislature lay down that rule which the Lord Chancellor does in his paper, and which Chief Justice Mansfield did in the case of Bellingham; and why could not the Judges be _bound_ to interpret the law in _this_ and _no other_ sense in their charges to the Juries?[26]

[Footnote 25: Solicitor-General. His health gave way in middle life, and he died in 1845.]

[Footnote 26: In consequence of the manner in which the trial terminated, and the feeling excited in the country, the House of Lords put certain questions on the subject of criminal insanity to the Judges, whose answers have been since considered as establishing the law.]

[Pageheading: PRINCESS MARY OF BADEN]

_The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria._

FOREIGN OFFICE, _13th March 1843._

Lord Aberdeen presents his humble duty to your Majesty. In obedience to your Majesty's commands he has endeavoured to consider the letter of the Grand Duke of Baden with reference to the position of the Princess Mary[27] in this country. Lord Aberdeen does not find in the proceedings of the Conference of Great Powers at Vienna, at Aix la Chapelle, or at Paris, anything which can materially affect the question. The great difficulty with respect to the Princess appears to arise from the fact that in this country the rank and precedence of every person are regulated and fixed by law. Should your Majesty be disposed to deviate from the strict observance of this, although Lord Aberdeen cannot doubt that it would receive a very general acquiescence, it is still possible that the Princess might be exposed to occasional disappointment and mortification....

There is a consideration, to which Lord Aberdeen would humbly advert, which may not altogether be unworthy of your Majesty's notice. Your Majesty does not wish to encourage alliances of this description; and although there may be no danger of their frequent occurrence, it cannot be denied that an additional inducement would exist if Princesses always retained their own rank in this country.

On the whole, Lord Aberdeen would humbly submit to your Majesty that the Princess might be received by your Majesty, in the first instance, with such distinction as was due to her birth--either by a Royal carriage being sent to bring her to your Majesty's presence, or in any manner which your Majesty might command--with the understanding that she should permanently adopt the t.i.tle and station of her husband.

Your Majesty's favour and protection, afforded to her in this character will probably realise all the expectations of the Grand Duke; and, without acknowledging any positive claim or right, your Majesty would secure the grat.i.tude of the Princess.

[Footnote 27: The Princess Mary of Baden had recently married the Marquis of Douglas, eldest son of the Duke of Hamilton.

_See_ p. 439. (Ch. XI, 1st November, 1842)]

[Pageheading: THE PRINCE TO HOLD LEVeES]

_Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _17th March 1843._

The Queen has spoken again to the Prince about the Levees, who has kindly consented to do what can be of use and convenience to the Queen. There is one circ.u.mstance which must be considered and settled, and which the Queen omitted to mention to Sir Robert Peel when she saw him. The chief, indeed the _only_, object of having these Levees, is to save the Queen the _extreme fatigue_ of the _Presentations_ which would come in such a _ma.s.s_ together when the Queen _held them herself_; the Prince naturally holds the _Levees for_ the Queen, and _represents her_; could not therefore everybody who was presented to him be made to understand that this would be tantamount to a presentation to the Queen herself? There might perhaps be an objection on the part of people presented to kneel and kiss the Prince's hand.

But this could be obviated by merely having the people named to the Prince. The inconvenience would be _so great_ if n.o.body at all could be presented till late in the season, that something must be devised to get over this difficulty.