Chapter IV · THE REIGN OF GEORGE III (continued 2)

The demonstration was, if anything, more fierce on the King's return, and he had some difficulty in reaching St. James's Palace without injury; for the mob threw stones at the state carriage and damaged it considerably. After remaining a short time at St. James's, he proceeded in his private coach to Buckingham House, but the carriage was stopped in the Park by the populace, who pressed round it, shouting, "Bread, bread! Peace, peace!" until the King was rescued from this unpleasant situation by a strong body of the Guards.

Treason and sedition Acts were hurried through Parliament to repress the cries of the hungry for bread, whilst additional taxes were imposed to make the poor poorer.

That the terrible French war—of which it is impossible to give any account in the limits of this essay, a war which cost Great Britain at least £1,000,000,000 in hard cash, without reckoning the hundreds of thousands of killed, wounded, and pauperized, and which Buckle calls "the most hateful, the most unjust, and the most atrocious war England has ever waged against any country"—directly resulted from our government under the Brunswick family is a point on which it is impossible for any one who has examined the facts to have a serious doubt. Sir Archibald Alison tells us that, early in 1791, "The King of England took a vivid interest in the misfortunes of the Royal Family of France, promising, as Elector of Hanover, to concur in any measure which might be deemed necessary to extricate them from their embarrassments; and he sent Lord Elgin to Leopold, who was then travelling in Italy, to concert measures for the common object." It was as Elector of Hanover also that his grandfather, George IT., had sacrificed English honor and welfare to the personal interest and family connections of these wretched Brunswicks.

It is certain too, that, after years of terrible war, on one of the occasions of negotiation for peace, hindrances arose because our Government insisted on describing George III, in the preliminaries, as "King of France." The French naturally said, first, your King George never has been King of any part of France at any time; and next, we, having just declared France a Republic, cannot in a solemn treaty recognize the continued existence of a claim to Monarchy over us.

The following table, which we insert at this stage to save the need for further reference, shows how the labor of the British nation was burdened for generations to come, by the insane affection of the House of Brunswick for the House of Bourbon:—

After making some deductions on account of the operations of the loyalty loan, and the transfer of annuities, the total debt contracted from 1793 to 1815 amounts to £762,537,445. If to this sum be added the increase in the unfunded debt during that period, and the additional sums raised by taxes in consequence of hostilities, we shall have the total expenditure, owing to the French war, as follows:—

Lord Fife, in the House of Lords, said that "in this horrid war had he first witnessed the blood and treasure of the nation expended in the extravagant folly of secret expeditions, which had invariably proved either abortive or unsuccessful. Grievous and heavy taxes had been laid on the people, and wasted in expensive embassies, and in subsidizing proud, treacherous, and useless foreign princes."

In 1795 King George and his advisers tried by statute to put a stop forever in this country to all political or religious discussion. No meeting was to be held, except on five days' duly advertised notice, to be signed by householders; and if for lectures or debates, on special license by a magistrate. Power was given to any magistrate to put an end in his discretion ta any meeting, and to use military force in the event of twelve persons remaining one hour after notice. If a man lent books, newspapers, or pamphlets without license, he might be fined twenty pounds for every offence. If he permitted lectures or debates on any subject whatever, he might be fined one hundred pounds a day. And yet people dare to tell us that we owe our liberties to these Brunswicks!

On the 1st of June, 1795, Gillray, in a caricature entitled "John Bull Ground Down," had represented Pitt grinding John Bull into money, which was flowing out in an immense stream beneath the mill. The Prince of Wales is drawing off a large portion, to pay the debts incurred by his extravagance; while Dundas, Burke, and Loughborough, as the representatives of ministerial pensioners, are scrambling for the rest. King George encourages Pitt to grind without mercy. Another caricature by Gillray, published on the 4th of June, represents Pitt as Death on the White Horse (the horse of Hanover), riding over a drove of pigs, the representatives of what Burke had termed the "swinish multitude."

On the 7th of January, 1796, the Princess Charlotte of Wales was born, and on the 30th of April, George, Prince of Wales, wrote to the Princess Caroline, stating that he did not intend to live with her any more. The Prince had some time previously sent by Lord Cholmondeley a verbal message to the same effect, which, however, the Princess had refused to accept. The mistress reigning over the Prince of Wales at this time was Lady Jersey.

No impeachment of the House of Brunswick would be even tolerably supported which did not contain some reference to the terrible misgovernment of Ireland under the rule of this obstinate and vicious family; and yet these few pages afford but little space in which to show how beneficent the authority of King George III. has proved to our Irish brethren.

During the war, when there were no troops in Ireland, and when, under Flood and Grattan, the volunteers were in arms, some concessions had been made to the Irish people. A few obnoxious laws had been repealed, and promises had been held out of some relaxation of the fearfully oppressive laws against the Catholics. From the correspondence of Earl Temple, it is clear that in 1782 not only was the King against any further concession whatever, but that his Majesty and Lord Shelburne actually manoeuvred to render the steps already taken as fruitless as possible. We find W. W. Grenville admitting, on the 15th December, 1782, "that the [Irish] people are really miserable and oppressed to a degree I had not at all conceived." The Government acted dishonestly to Ireland. The consequence was, continued misery and disaffection; and I assert, without fear of contradiction, that this state of things is directly traceable to the King's wilfulness on Irish affairs. As an illustration of the character of the Government, it is worth notice that Lord Temple, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote to his brother in cipher, because his letters were opened in the Post Office by Lord Shelburne. The Parliament of Ireland was in great part owned by absentee peers, and each change of Lord-Lieutenancy was marked by heavy addition to the Pension List. The continuance of the Catholic disabilities rendered permanent quiet impossible. Three-fourths of the nation were legally and socially almost outlawed. The national discontent was excited by the arbitrary conduct of the authorities, and hopes of successful revolution were encouraged, after 1789, by the progress of the Revolution in France.

About 1790, the "United Irishmen" first began to be heard of. Their object was "a complete reform in the legislature, founded on the principles of civil, political and religious liberty." The clubs soon became secret associations, and were naturally soon betrayed. Prosecutions for sedition in 1793 were soon followed by military repression.

Lord Moira, in the House of Lords in 1797, in a powerful speech, which has remained without any refutation, described the Government of Ireland as "the most absurd, as well as the most disgusting, tyranny that any nation ever groaned under." He said: "If such a tyranny be persevered in, the consequence must inevitably be the deepest and most universal discontent, and even hatred to the English name. I have seen in that country a marked distinction made between the English and Irish. I have seen troops that have been sent full of this prejudice—that every inhabitant in that kingdom is a rebel to the British. Government. I have seen the most wanton insults practised upon men of all ranks and conditions. I have seen the most grievous oppressions exercised, in consequence of a presumption that the person who was the unfortunate object of such oppression was in hostility to the Government; and yet that has been done in a part of the country as quiet and as free from disturbance as the city of London." His lordship then observed that, "from education and early habits, the curfew was ever considered by Britons as a badge of slavery and oppression. It was then practised in Ireland with brutal rigor. He had known instances where the master of a house had in vain pleaded to be allowed the use of a candle, to enable the mother to administer relief to her daughter struggling in convulsive fits. In former times, it had been the custom for Englishmen to hold the infamous proceedings of the Inquisition in detestation. One of the greatest horrors with which it was attended was that the person, ignorant of the crime laid to his charge, or of his accuser, was torn from his family, immured in a prison, and kept in the most cruel uncertainty as to the period of his confinement, or the fate which awaited him. To this injustice, abhorred by Protestants in the practice of the Inquisition, were the people of Ireland exposed. All confidence, all security, were taken away. When a man was taken up on suspicion, he was put to the torture; nay, if he were merely accused of concealing the guilt of another. The rack, indeed, was not at hand; but the punishment of picqucting was in practice, which had been for some years abolished as too inhuman, even in the dragoon service. He had known a man, in order to extort a confession of a supposed crime, or of that of some of his neighbors, picqueted till he actually fainted—picqueted a second time till he fainted again, and as soon as he came to himself, picqueted a third time till he once more fainted; and all upon mere suspicion! Nor was this the only species of torture. Men had been taken and hung up till they were half dead, and then threatened with a repetition of the cruel treatment, unless they made confession of the imputed guilt. These were not particular acts of cruelty, exercised by men abusing the power committed to them, but they formed part of our system. They were notorious, and no person could say who would be the next victim of this oppression and cruelty, which he saw others endure. This, however, was not all: their lordships, no doubt, would recollect the famous proclamation issued by a military commander in Ireland, requiring the people to give up their arms. It never was denied that this proclamation was illegal, though defended on some supposed necessity; but it was not surprising that some reluctance had been shown to comply with it by men who conceived the Constitution gave them a right to keep arms in their houses for their own defence; and they could not but feel indignation in being called upon to give up their right, In the execution of the order the greatest cruelties had been committed. If any one was suspected to have concealed weapons of defence, his house, his furniture, and all his property were burnt; but this was not all. If it were supposed that any district had not surrendered all the arms which it contained, a party was sent out to collect the number at which it was rated; and, in execution of this order, thirty houses were sometimes burnt down in a single night. Officers took upon themselves to decide discretionally the quantity of arms; and upon their opinions the fatal consequences followed. These facts were well-known in Ireland, but they could not be made public through the channel of the newspapers, for fear of that summary mode of punishment which had been practised towards the Northern Star, when a party of troops in open day, and in a town where the General's head-quarters were, went and destroyed all the offices and property belonging to that paper. It was thus authenticated accounts were suppressed."

Can any one wonder that the ineffectual attempt at revolution of 1798 followed such a state of things? And when, in the London Chronicle and Cambridge Intelligencer, and other journals by no means favorable to Ireland or its people, we read the horrid stories of women ravished, men tortured, and farms pillaged, all in the name of law and order, and this by King George's soldiers, not more than seventy years ago, can we feel astonishment that the Wexford peasants have grown up to hate the Saxon oppressor? And this we owe to a family of kings who used their pretended Protestantism as a cloak for the ill-treatment of our Catholic brethren in Ireland. In impeaching the Brunswicks, we remind the people of proclamations officially issued in the King's name, threatening to burn and devastate whole parishes, and we allege that the disaffection in Ireland at the present moment is the natural fruit of the utter regardlessness, on the part of these Guelphs, for human liberty, or happiness, or life. The grossest excesses were perpetrated in Ireland by King George III.'s foreign auxiliaries. The troops from Hesse Cassel, from Hesse Darmstadt, and from Hanover, earned an unenviable notoriety by their cruelty, rapacity, and licentiousness. And these we owe entirely to the Brunswicks.

A letter from the War Office, dated April 11th, 1798, shows how foreigners were specially selected for the regiments sent over to Ireland. Sir Ralph Abercromby publicly rebuked the King's army, of which he was the Commander-in-Chief, for their disgraceful irregularities and licentiousness. Even Lieutenant-General Lake admits that "the determination of the troops to destroy every one they think a rebel is beyond description, and needs correction."

In 1801, it was announced that King George III. was suffering from severe cold and sore throat, and could not therefore go out in public. His disease, however, was more mental than bodily. Her present Majesty has also suffered from severe cold and sore throat, but no allegation is ventured that her mental condition is such as to unfit her for her Royal duties.

On March 29, 1802, the sum of £990,053 was voted for payment of the King's debts.

In 1803, the Prince of Wales being again in debt, a further vote was passed of £60,000 a year for three years and a half. Endeavors were made to increase this grant, but, marvellous to relate, the House of Commons actually acted as if it had some slight interest in the welfare of the people, and rejected a motion of Mr. Calcraft for a further vote of money to enable his Royal Highness to maintain his state and dignity. The real effect of the vote actually carried, was to provide for £800,649 of the Prince's debts, including the vote of 1794.

On July 21,1763, £60,000 cash, and a pension of £16,000 a year, were voted to the Prince of Orange.

In 1804, King George was very mad, but Mr. Addington explained to Parliament, that there was nothing in his Majesty's indisposition to prevent his discharging the Royal functions. Mr. Gladstone also recently explained to Parliament, that there would be no delay in the prorogation of Parliament in consequence of her gracious Majesty's indisposition and absence.

In 1805, the House of Commons directed the criminal prosecution of Lord Melville, for corrupt conduct and embezzlement of public money, as first Lord of the Admiralty. For this, however, impeachment was substituted, and, on his trial before the House of Peers, he was acquitted, as out of 136 peers, only 59 said that they thought him guilty, although he had admitted the misapplication of £10,000.

On the 29th of March, 1806, a warrant was signed by King George III., directed to Lord Chancellor Erskine, to Lord Grenville, the Prime Minister, to Lord Ellenborough, then Lord Chief Justice of England, and to Earl Spencer, commanding them to inquire into the conduct of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. Before these Lords, Charlotte Lady Douglas swore that she had visited the Princess, who confessed to having committed adultery, saying "that she got a bedfellow whenever she could, that nothing was more wholesome." Lady Douglas further swore to the Princess's pregnancy, and evidence was given to prove that she had been delivered of a male child. The whole of this evidence was found to be perjury, and Lady Douglas was recommended for prosecution. The only person to be benefited was George Prince of Wales, who desired to be divorced from his wife, and it is alleged that he suborned these witnesses to commit perjury against her. At this time the Prince of Wales himself had just added Lady Hertfort to the almost interminable muster-roll of his loves, and was mixed up in a still more strange and disgraceful transaction, in which he used his personal influence to canvass Peers—sitting as the highest law court in the realm—in order to induce them to vote the guardianship of Miss Seymour, a niece of Lady Hertfort, to Mrs. Fitz-herbert. Spencer Percival, who acted for the Princess of Wales, being about to publish the whole of the proceedings of the Royal Commissioners, with the evidence and their verdict, his book was quietly suppressed, and he received a reward—a post in the Cabinet. It is said that George III. directed the report of the Commissioners to be destroyed, and every trace of the whole affair to be buried in oblivion.

For some years rumors had been current of corruption in the administration of military promotion under the Duke of York, just as for some time past rumors have been current of abuse of patronage under his Royal Highness the present Duke of Cambridge, A Major Hogan, in 1808, published a declaration that he lost his promotion because he had refused to give the sum of £600 to the Duke of York's "Venus."

On the 27th January, 1809, Colonel Wardle—who is said to have been prompted to the course by his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent—rose in his place in the House of Commons, and formally charged his Royal Highness Frederick Duke of York with corruption in the administration of army patronage.

It is difficult to determine how far credit should be given to the statements of Mrs. Clarke, who positively alleges that she was bribed to betray the Duke of York by his brother, the Duke of Kent, the father of her present Majesty. It is quite certain that Major Dodd, the private secretary of the Duke of Kent, was most active in collecting and marshalling the evidence in support of the various charges made in the Commons against the Duke of York. The Duke of Kent, however, after the whole business was over, formally and officially denied that he was directly or indirectly mixed up in the business. It is clear that much bitter feeling had for some time existed between the Dukes of York and Kent. In a pamphlet published about that time, we find the following remarkable passages relating to the Duke of Kent's removal from his military command at Gibraltar:—"It is, however, certain that the creatures whom we could name, and who are most in his [the Duke of York's] confidence, were, to a man, instructed and industriously employed in traducing the character and well-merited fame of the Duke of Kent, by misrepresenting his conduct with all the baseness of well-trained sycophants. Moreover, we need not hesitate in saying that this efficient Commander-in-Chief, contrary to the real sentiments of his Majesty, made use of his truly dangerous and undue influence with the confidential servants of the Crown to got his brother recalled from the Government of Gibraltar, under a disingenuous pretext, and at a risk of promoting sedition in the army."

In another pamphlet, dated 1808, apparently printed on behalf of the Duke of Kent, we find it suggested that the Duke of York had used Sir Hew Dalrymple as a spy on his brother the Duke of Kent at Gibraltar. Whether the Duke of York slandered the Duke of Kent, and whether the Queen's father revenged himself by getting up the case for Colonel Wardle, others must decide. The following extracts from this gentleman's address to the House of Commons are sufficient to put the material points before our readers:—

"In the year 1803, his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief took a handsome house, set up a full retinue of servants and horses, and also a lady of the name of Clarke. Captain Tonyn, of the 48th Regiment, was introduced by Captain Sandon, of the Royal Wagon Train, to this Mrs. Clarke, and it was agreed that, upon his being promoted to the majority of the 31st Regiment, he should pay her £500. The £500 lodged with Mr. Donovan by Captain Sandon, was paid by him to Mrs. Clarke. The difference between a company and a majority is £1,100; this lady received only £500, while the half-pay fund lost the whole sum, for the purpose of putting £500 into the pocket of Mrs. Clarke. This £500 was paid by Mrs. Clarke to Mr. Perkins, a silversmith, in part payment for a service of plate; that the Commander-in-Chief made good the remainder, and that the goods were sent to his house in Gloucester Place. From this I infer, first, that Mrs. Clarke possesses the power of military promotion; secondly, that she received a pecuniary consideration for such promotion; and thirdly, that the Commander-in-Chief was a partaker in the benefit arising from such transactions. In this case, there are no less than five different persons as witnesses, viz., Major Tonyn, Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Donovan, Captain Sandon, and the executor of Mr. Perkins, the silversmith.

"The next instance is of Lieutenant Colebrook, of the 56th Regiment. It was agreed that Mrs. Clarke should receive £200 upon Lieutenant Colebrook's name appearing in the Gazette, for promotion. At that moment, this lady was anxious to go on an excursion into the country, and she stated to his Royal Highness that she had an opportunity of getting £200 to defray the expenses of it, without applying to him. This was stated upon a Thursday, and on the Saturday following, this officer's name appeared in the Gazette, and he was accordingly promoted; upon which Mr. Tuck waited on the lady and paid her the money. To this transaction the witnesses are Lieutenant Colebrook, Mr. Tuck, and Mrs. Clarke."

After instancing further cases, Colonel Wardle stated that:—

"At this very hour there is a public office in the city where commissions are still offered at the reduced prices which Mrs. Clarke chooses to exact for them. The agents there have declared to me that they are now employed by the present favorite, Mrs. Carey. They have not only declared this as relative to military commissions, but they have carried it much farther; for, in addition to commissions in the army, places of all descriptions, both in Church and State, are transacted at their office; and these agents do not hesitate to give it under their own hands, that they are employed by many of the first officers in his Majesty's service."

On the examination of witnesses, and general inquiry, which lasted seven weeks, the evidence was overwhelming; but the Duke of York, having written a letter, pledged his honor as a Prince that he was innocent, was acquitted, although at least one hundred and twelve members of Parliament voted for a verdict of condemnation. In the course of the debate Lord Temple said that "he found the Duke of York deeply criminal in allowing this woman to interfere in his official duties. The evidence brought forward by accident furnished convincing proofs of this crime. It was evident in French's levy. It was evident in the case of Dr. O'Meara, this minister of purity, this mirror of virtue, who, professing a call from God, could so far debase himself, so far abuse his sacred vocation, as to solicit a recommendation from such a person as Mrs. Clarke, by which, with an eye to a bishopric, he obtained an opportunity of preaching before the King. What could be said in justification of his Royal Highness for allowing this hypocrite to come down to Weymouth under a patronage, unbecoming his duty, rank, and situation?"

Mr. Tierney—in reply to a taunt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Colonel Wardle had been tutored by "cooler heads"—said: "He would state that the Duke of York had got his letter drawn up by weaker heads; he would, indeed, add something worse, if it were not unparliamentary to express it. The Duke of York was, he was persuaded, too manly to subscribe that letter, if he were aware of the base, unworthy, and mean purposes to which it was to be applied. It was easy to conceive that his Royal Highness would have been prompt to declare his innocence upon a vital point; but why declare it upon the 'honor of a Prince,' for the thing had no meaning?"

Mr. Lyttleton declared that "if it were in the power of the House to send down to posterity the character of the Duke of York unsullied—if their proceedings did not extend beyond their journals, he should be almost inclined to concur in the vote of acquittal, even in opposition to his sense of duty. But though the House should acquit his Royal Highness, the proofs would still remain, and the public opinion would be guided by them, and not by the decision of the House. It was in the power of the House to save its own character, but not that of the Commander-in-Chief."

It is alleged that the Queen herself by no means stood with clean hands; that in connection with Lady Jersey and a Doctor Randolph, her Majesty realized an enormous sum by the sale of cadetships for the East Indies.

On the 31st May, 1810, London was startled by the narrative of a terrible tragedy. His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, afterwards King of Hanover, and who, while King of Hanover, drew £24,000 a year from the pockets of English taxpayers, was wounded in his own room in the dead of night, by some man whom he did not see, although the room was lighted by a lamp, and although his Royal Highness saw "a letter" which lay on a night table, and which letter was "covered with blood." The wounds are said to have been sword wounds inflicted with an intent to assassinate, by Joseph Sellis, a valet of the Duke, who is also said to have immediately afterwards committed suicide by cutting his own throat. General Sir B. Stephenson, who saw the body of Sellis, but who was not examined at the inquest, swore that "the head was nearly severed from the body." Sellis's cravat had been cut through and taken off his neck. Sir Everard Home and Sir Henry Halford were the physicians present at St. James's Palace the day of this tragedy, and two surgeons were present at the inquest, but no medical or surgical evidence was taken as to whether or not the death of Sellis was the result of suicide or murder; but a cheesemonger was called to prove that twelve years before he had heard Sellis say, "Damn the King and the Royal Family;" and a maid servant was called to prove that fourteen years before Sellis had said, "Damn the Almighty." Despite this conclusive evidence, many horrible rumors were current, which, at the time, were left uncontradicted; but on the 17th April, 1832, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland made an affidavit in which he swore that he had not murdered Sellis himself, and that "in case the said person named Sellis did not die by his own hands," then that he, the Duke, "was not any way, in any manner, privy or accessory to his death." His Royal Highness also swore that "he never did commit, nor had any intention of committing, the detestable crime," which it had pretended Sellis had discovered the Duke in the act of committing. This of course entirely clears the Queen's uncle from all suspicion. Daniel O'Connell, indeed, described him as "the mighty great liar;" but with the general character for truthfulness of the family, it would be in the highest degree improper to suggest even the semblance of a doubt. It was proved upon the inquest that Sellis was a sober, quiet man, in the habit of daily shaving the Duke, and that he had never exhibited any suicidal or homicidal tendencies. It therefore appears that he tried to wound or kill his Royal Highness without any motive, and under circumstances in which he knew discovery was inevitable, and that he then killed himself with a razor, cutting his head almost off his body, severing it to the bone. When Matthew Henry Graslin first saw the body, he "told them all that Sellis had been murdered," and although he was called on the inquest he does not say one word as to the condition of Sellis's body, or as to whether or not he believes it to have been a suicide. Of all the persons who saw the body of Sellis, and they appear to be many, only one, a sergeant in the Coldstreams, gave the slightest evidence as to the state in which the body was found, and no description whatever was given, on the inquest, of the nature of the fearful wound which had nearly severed Sellis's head from his body; nor, although it was afterwards proved by sworn evidence that Sellis's cravat "was cut through the whole of the folds, and the inside fold was tinged with blood," was any evidence offered as to this on the inquest, although it shows that Sellis must have first tried to cut his throat through his cravat and that having partially but ineffectively cut his throat, he then took off his cravat and gave himself with tremendous force the gash which caused his death. It is said that the razor with which Sellis killed himself was found two feet from the bed, and on the left-hand side; but although it was stated that Sellis was a left-handed man, no evidence was offered of this, and on the contrary, the bloody hand marks, said to have been made by Sellis on the doors, were all on the right hand. It is a great nuisance when people you are mixed up with commit suicide. Undoubtedly, Sellis must have killed himself. The journals tell us how Lord Graves killed himself long years afterward. The Duke of Cumberland and Lady Graves, the widow, rode out together very shortly after the suicide.

In the Rev. Erskine Neale's Life of the Duke of Kent it is stated that a surgeon of note, who saw Sellis after his death, declared that there were several wounds on the back of the neck which it was physically impossible Sellis could have self-inflicted. In a lecture to his pupils the surgeon repeated this in strong language, declaring that "no man can behead himself."

The madness of George III. having become too violent and too continual to permit it to be any longer hidden from the people, the Prince of Wales was, in 1811, declared Regent, with limited powers, and £70,000 a year additional was voted for the Regent's expenses, and a further £10,000 a year also granted to the Queen as custodian of her husband. The grant to the Queen was the more outrageous, as her great wealth and miserly conduct were well known. When the Regent was first appointed, he authorized the Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare officially to the House of Commons, that he would not add to the burdens of the nation; and yet, in 1812, the allowance voted was made retrospective, so as to include every hour of his office.

In the discussion in Parliament on the proposed Regency, it appeared that the people had been for a considerable period utterly deceived on the subject of the King's illness; and that, although his Majesty had been for some time blind, deaf, and delirious, the Ministry, representing the King to be competent, had dared to carry on the Government whilst Greorge III. was in every sense incapacitated. It is worthy of notice that the Right Honorable Benjamin Disraeli, the leader of the great Conservative party in this country, publicly declared on September 26th, 1871, that her present Majesty, Queen Victoria, was both "physically and morally" incapable of performing her regal functions. One advantage of having the telegraph wires in the hands of Government is shown by the fact that all the telegraphic summaries omitted the most momentous words of Mr. Disraeli's speech. During the debate in the session of 1811, it was shown that when the King was mad in the month of March, 1804, he had on the 4th been represented by Lord Eldon as if he had given his assent to a bill granting certain lands to the Duke of York, and on the 9th as if he had signed a commission.

Earl Grey stated that it was notorious that on two occasions the Great Seal had been employed as if by his Majesty's command, while he was insane. The noble earl also declared that, in 1801, the King was mad for some weeks, and yet during that time councils were held, members sworn to it, and acts done requiring the King's sanction. Sir Francis Burdett said, "that to have a person at the head of affairs who had long been incapable of signing his name to a document without some one to guide his hand; a person long incapable of receiving petitions, of even holding a levee, or discharging the most ordinary functions of his office, and now afflicted with this mental malady, was a most mischievous example to the people of this country, while it had a tendency to expose the Government to the contempt of foreign nations."

One of the earliest acts of the Prince Regent was to reappoint his brother, the Duke of York, to the office of Commander-in-Chief. A motion was proposed by Lord Milton, in the House of Commons, declaring this appointment to be "highly improper and indecorous." The Ministry were, however, sufficiently powerful to negative this resolution by a large majority. Though His Royal Highness had resigned his high office when assailed with charges of the grossest corruption, he was permitted to resume the command of the army without even a protest, save from a minority of the House of Commons, and from a few of the unrepresented masses. The chief mistress of the Prince Regent at this time was the Marchioness of Hertford; and the Courier, then the ministerial journal, had the cool impudence to speak of her as 'Britain's guardian angel,' because her influence had been used to hinder the carrying any measure for the relief of the Irish Catholics. Amongst the early measures under the Regency, was the issue in Ireland of a circular letter addressed to the Sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants of the counties, forbidding the meetings of Catholics, and threatening all Catholic committees with arrest and imprisonment. This, however, was so grossly illegal, that it had shortly after to be abandoned, a Protestant jury having refused to convict the first prisoners brought to trial. It is curious to read the arguments against Catholic Emancipation pleaded in the Courier, one being that during the whole of his reign, George III. "is known to have felt the most conscientious and irrevocable objections" to any such measure of justice to his unfortunate Irish subjects.

In 1812 we had much poverty in England; and though this was not dealt with by Parliament, £100,000 was granted to Lord Wellington, and £200,000 voted for Russian sufferers by the French war. We had a few months previously voted £100,000 for the relief of the Portuguese against the French. On a message from the Prince Regent, annuities of £9,000 each were also granted to the four Princesses, exclusive of £4,000 from the Civil List. The message from the Prince Regent for the relief of the "Russian sufferers" was brought down on the 17th of December; and it is a curious fact that while Lord Castlereagh and Lord Liverpool were eulogizing the Russians for their "heroic patriotism" in burning Moscow, the Russians themselves were declaring in the St. Petersburgk Gazette that the deed was actually committed by "the impious French," on whose heads the Gazette invoked the vengeance of God.

In 1812, the Prince Regent gave a sinecure office, that of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions, to his "confidential servant," Colonel Macmahon. The nature of the sort of private services which had been for some years performed by this gallant colonel for this virtuous Prince may be better guessed than described. Mr. Henry Brougham declared the appointment to be an insult to Parliament. It was vigorously attacked indoors and out of doors, and, in obedience to the voice of popular opinion, the Commons voted the immediate abolition of the office. To recompense Colonel Macmahon for the loss of his place, he was immediately appointed Keeper of the Privy Purse and Private Secretary to the Prince Regent. This appointment was also severely criticised; and although the Government were sufficiently powerful to defeat the attack in the Commons, they were yet compelled, by the strong protest made by the public against such an improper appointment, to nominally transfer the salary to the Regent's privy purse. The transfer was not real, as, the Civil List being always in debt, the nation had in fact ultimately to pay the money.

In 1813, foreign subsidies to the amount of £11,000,000, and 100,000 stand of arms, were voted by the English Parliament. Out of the above, Portugal received £2,000,000, Sicily, £400,000, Spain, £2,000,000, Sweden, £1,000,000, Russia and Prussia, £3,000,000, Austria, £1,000,000, besides stores sent to Germany to the amount of £2,000,000 more.

This year his Royal Highness the Prince Regent went to Ascot races, where he was publicly dunned by a Mr. Vaux-hall Clarke for a betting debt incurred some years before, and left unpaid.

Great excitement was created in and out of Parliament by the complaint of the Princess of Wales that she was not allowed to see her daughter, the Princess Charlotte. The Prince Regent formally declared, through the Speaker of the House of Commons, that he would not meet, on any occasion, public or private, the Princess of Wales (whom it was urged that "he had been forced to marry "); while the Princess of Wales wrote a formal letter to Parliament complaining that her character had been "traduced by suborned perjury." Princess Charlotte refused to be presented at Court except by her mother, who was not allowed to go there. In the House of Commons, Mr. Whitbread charged the Lords Commissioners with unduly straining the evidence by leading questions; and Lord Ellenborough, in his place in the House of Peers, declared that the accusation was "as false as hell." Ultimately, it was admitted that the grave charges against the Princess of Wales were groundless, and £35,000 a year was voted to her, she agreeing to travel abroad. Mr. Bathurst, a sinecurist pensioner, pleading on behalf of the Prince Regent that the House of Commons ought not to interfere, urged that it was no unusual thing to have dissensions in the Royal Family, and that they had been frequent in the reigns of George I. and George II. Mr. Stuart Wortley, in the course of a severe speech in reply to Lord Castlereagh, declared that "we had a Royal Family which took no warning from what was said or thought about them, and seemed to be the only persons in the country who were wholly regardless of their own welfare and respectability."

The Princess Charlotte of Wales was at this time residing in Warwick House, and some curiosity was aroused by the dismissal, by order of the Prince Regent, of all her servants. This was immediately followed by the flight of the Princess from the custody of her father to the residence of her mother, the Princess of Wales. Persuaded to return to the Prince Regent by her mother, Lord Eldon, and others, she appears to have been really detained as a sort of prisoner, for we find the Duke of Sussex soon after complaining in the House of Lords that he was unable to obtain access to the Princess, and asking by whose authority she was kept in durance. Happy family, these Bruns-wicks!

In 1814, £100,000 further was devoted to the Duke of Wellington, together with an annuity of £10,000 a year, to be at any time commuted for £300,000. The income of the Duke of Wellington, from places, pensions, and grants, amounted to an enormous sum. At present we pay his heir £4,000 a year for having inherited his father's riches.

During the year 1814, £118,857 was voted for payment of the Civil List debts.

The Emperor of Russia and King of Prussia, after the restoration of Louis XVIII., visited the Prince Regent in this country, when the following squib was published:—

On the 12th of August, 1814, the Princess of Wales quitted England, and it is alleged that, on the evening prior to her departure, the Prince Regent, having as usual drank much wine, proposed a toast, "To the Princess of Wales' damnation, and may she never return to England." Whether this story, which Dr. Doran repeats, be true or false, it is certain that the Prince Regent hated his wife with a thoroughly merciless hatred. When the death of Napoleon was known in England, a gentleman, thinking to gain favor with George IV. said, "Your Majesty's bitterest enemy is dead." The "first gentleman of Europe" thought only of his wife, and replied, "Is she, by God!"

The highly esteemed and virtuous Duke of Cumberland was married at Berlin to the Princess of Salms, a widow who had been twice married, once betrothed, and once divorced. The lady was niece to the Queen of England, who refused to receive her publicly or privately. On this refusal being known, a letter was published in the newspapers, written and signed by the Queen herself, to her brother the Duke of Mecklenburgh-Strelitz, the father of the bride, in which letter the Queen gave assurances of a kind reception to the bride on her arrival in England. The Queen's friends replied that the Queen's letter was only written to be shown to the German Courts on the condition that the Duchess should not come to England. Curious notions of truth and honor seem current among these Brunswicks!

On the 27th of June, the Lords, on a message from the Prince Regent, voted an additional allowance of £6,000 a year to the Duke of Cumberland in consequence of the marriage. In the House of Commons, after a series of very warm debates, in which Lord Castlereagh objected to answer "any interrogatories tending to vilify the Royal Family," the House ultimately refused to grant the allowance by 126 votes against 125.

One historian says: "The demeanor of the Duchess of Cumberland in this country has been, to say the least, unobtrusive and unimpeached; but it must be confessed that a disastrous fatality—something inauspicious and indescribable—attaches to the Prince, her husband."

This year £200,000 further was voted to the Duke of Wellington, for the purchase of an estate, although it appeared from one Member of Parliament's speech that the vote should rather have been to the Prince Regent. "Who," he asked, "had rendered the army efficient? The Prince Regent—by restoring the Duke of York to the Horse Guards. Who had gained the Battle of Waterloo? The Prince Regent—by giving the command of the army to the Duke of Wellington!!" The Prince Regent himself had even a stronger opinion on the matter. Thackeray says: "I believe it is certain about George IV. that he had heard so much of the war, knighted so many people, and worn, such a prodigious quantity of marshal's uniforms, cocked hats, cocks' feathers, scarlet and bullion in general, that he actually fancied he had been present at some campaigns, and under the name of General Brock led a tremendous charge of the German legion at Waterloo."

In 1816, Prince Leopold of Coburg Saalfeld, a very petty German Prince, without estate or position, married the Princess Charlotte of Wales, as if he were a Protestant, although he most certainly on other occasions acted as if he belonged to the Catholic Church. A grant of £60,000 a year was made to the royal couple; £60,000 was given for the wedding outfit, and £50,000 secured to Prince Leopold for life, in the event of his surviving the Princess. And although this was done, it was well known to the Prince Regent and the members of the Government, that on the 2d January of the previous year, a marriage ceremony, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, had been performed, by which the Prince Leopold was united to the Countess of Cohaky. Bigamy appears to be a fashionable vice, and one to which these Brunswicks never raise any objection.

On the 9th December, the City of London presented an address to the Prince Regent, in which they complained of "immense subsidies to foreign powers to defend their own territories, or to commit aggressions on those of their neighbors, of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace, of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List, of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures, and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of the Government." This address appears to have deeply wounded the Regent, and the expressions of stern rebuke he used in replying, coupled with a rude sulkiness of manner, were ungracious and unwarrantable. He emphasized his answer with pauses and frowns, and turned on his heel as soon as he had delivered it. And yet at this moment hundreds of thousands in England were starving. Kind monarchs these Brunswicks!

Early in 1817, the general distress experienced in all parts of England, and which had been for some time on the increase, was of a most severe character. Meetings in London and the provinces grew frequent, and were most numerously attended, and on February 3d, in consequence of a message from the Prince Regent, Committees of Secrecy were appointed by the Lords and Commons, to inquire into the character of the various movements. The Government was weak and corrupt, but the people lacked large-minded leaders, and the wide-spread discontent of the masses of the population rendered some of their number easy victims to the police spies who manufactured political plots.

On the 6th of November, 1817, Princess Charlotte of Wales died. Complaints were raised that the Princess had not been fairly treated, and some excitement was created by the fact that Sir Richard Croft, the doctor who attended her, soon after committed suicide, and that the public and the reporters were not allowed to be present at the inquest. No notice whatever of the Princess's death was forwarded to her mother, the Princess of Wales. In a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, Mr. Wynn speaks of this as "the most brutal omission I ever remember, and one which would attach disgrace in private life." At this very time a large sum of money was being wasted in the employment of persons to watch the Princess of Wales on her foreign travels. In her correspondence we find the Princess complaining that her letters were opened and read, and that she was surrounded with spies. From the moment that George III. was declared incurable, and his death approaching, there seems little doubt that desperate means were resorted to to manufacture evidence against the Princess to warrant a divorce.

On July 13th, 1818, his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence married Adelaide, Princess of Saxe Meiningen, and his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent married her Serene Highness Victoria, Princess of Leiningen. The Duke of Clarence, of course, had voted to him an additional allowance of £6,000 a year on entering the married state, although he was already receiving from the country more than £21,000 a year in cash, and a house rent free. It is highly edifying to read that during the debates in Parliament, and when some objection was raised to the extra sums proposed to be voted to one of the Royal Dukes, Mr. Canning pleaded, as a reason for the payment, that his Royal Highness was not marrying "for his own private gratification, but because he had been advised to do so for the political purposes of providing succession to the throne." Pleasant this for the lady, and glorious for the country—Royal breeding machines! The Duke of Kent, who had the same additional vote, had about £25,000 a year, besides a grant of £20,000 towards the payment of his debts, and a loan of £6,000 advanced in 1806, of which up to the time of his marriage only £1,000 had been repaid.

Of Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, father of her present Majesty, it is only necessary to say a few words. The fourth son of George III. was somewhat better than his brothers, and perhaps for this very reason he seems always to have been disliked, and kept at a distance by his father, mother, and brothers. Nor was the Duke of Kent less disliked amongst the army, which he afterwards commanded. Very few of the officers loved him, and the bulk of the privates seem to have regarded him with the most hostile feelings. Kept very short of money by his miserly father and mother, he had, even before his majority, incurred considerable debts; and coming to England in 1790, in order to try and induce the King to make him some sufficient allowance, he was ordered to quit England in ten days. While allowances were made to all the other sons of George, the Duke of Kent had no Parlimentary vote until he was thirty-three years of age. In 1802 he was appointed Governor of Gibraltar, where a mutiny took place, and the Duke had a narrow escape of his life. The Duke of Kent's friends allege that this mutiny was encouraged by officers of the highest rank, secretly sustained by the Duke of York. The Duke of York's friends, on the contrary, maintain that the overbearing conduct of the Duke of Kent, his severity in details, and general harshness in command, alone produced the result. The Duke of Kent was recalled from the Government of Gibraltar, and for some months the pamphleteers were busy on behalf of the two Dukes, each seeking to prove that the royal brother of his royal client was a dishonorable man. Pleasant people, these Brunswicks! If either side wrote the truth, one of the Dukes was a rascal. If neither side wrote the truth, both were. The following extract from a pamphlet by Mary Anne Clarke, mistress of the Duke of York, will serve to show the nature of the publications I refer to: "I believe there is scarcely a military man in the kingdom who was at Gibraltar during the Duke of Kent's command of that fortress but is satisfied that the Duke of York's refusal of a court martial to his royal brother afforded an incontestible proof of his regard for the military character and honor of the Duke of Kent; for if a court martial had been granted to the Governor of Gibraltar, I always understood there was but one opinion as to what would have been the result; and then the Duke of Kent would have lost several thousands a year, and incurred such public reflections that would, most probably, have been painful to his honorable and acute feelings. It was, however, this act of affection for the Duke of Kent that laid the foundation of that hatred which has followed the Commander-in-Chief up to the present moment; and to this unnatural feeling he is solely indebted for all the misfortunes and disgrace to which he has been introduced. In one of the many conversations which I had with Majors Dodd and Glennie, upon the meditated ruin of the Duke of York, they informed me that their royal friend had made every endeavor in his power to poison the King's ear against the Commander-in-Chief, but as Colonel Taylor was so much about the person of his Majesty, all his efforts had proved ineffectual; and to have spoken his sentiments before Colonel Taylor would have been very injudicious, as he would immediately have communicated them to the Commander-in-Chief, who, though he knew this time ( said these confidential and worthy patriots) that the Duke of Kent was supporting persons to write against him, and that some parliamentary proceedings were upon the eve of bursting upon the public attention, yet deported himself towards his royal brother as if they lived but for each other's honor and happiness; and the Duke of Kent, to keep up appearances, was more particular in his attentions to the Duke of York than he had ever been before."

Despite the Duke of Kent's recall, he continued to receive salary and allowances as Governor. After the celebration of the marriage, he resided abroad, and was on such unfriendly terms with his family that when he returned from Amorbach to England, it was against the express orders of the Prince Regent, who, shortly after meeting his brother at the Spanish Ambassador's, took not the slightest notice of him.

On the 17th November, 1818, the Queen died, and the custody of the body of the mad, deaf, and blind monarch of England was nominally transferred to the Duke of York, who was voted an extra £10,000 a year for performing the duty of visiting his royal father twice a week. Objection was ineffectually raised that his Royal Highness had also his income as Commander-in-Chief and General Officer, and it might have also been added, his pensions and his income as Prince Bishop of Osnaburg. Mr. Curwen said: "Considering how complete the revenue of his Royal Highness was from public emoluments, he could not consent to grant him one shilling upon the present occasion."

In 1819, the Duke of Kent tried to get up a lottery for the sale of his Castlebar estate, in order to pay his debts, which were then about £70,000, but the project, being opposed by the Prince Regent, fell to the ground.

On the 24th of May, 1819, her present Majesty was born; and on the 23d of January, 1820, the Duke of Kent, her father, died.

On the 29th of January, 1820, after a sixty years' reign—in which debt, dishonor, and disgrace accrued to the nation he reigned over—George III. died. The National Debt at the date of his accession to the throne was about £150,000,000; at his death it was about £900,000,000.

Phillimore asks: "Had it not been for the unlimited power of borrowing, how many unjust and capricious wars would have been avoided! How different would be our condition, and the condition of our posterity! If half the sum lavished to prevent any one bearing the name of Napoleon from residing in France, for replacing the Bourbons on the thrones of France and Naples, for giving Belgium to Holland, Norway to Sweden, Finland to Russia, Venice and Lombardy to Austria, had been employed by individual enterprise, what would now be the resources of England?"

An extract, giving Lord Brougham's summary of George III's life and character, may, we think, fairly serve to close this chapter: "Of a narrow understanding, which no culture had enlarged; of an obstinate disposition, which no education perhaps could have humanized; of strong feelings in ordinary things, and a resolute attachment to all his own opinions and predilections, George III. possessed much of the firmness of purpose which, being exhibited by men of contracted mind without any discrimination, and as pertinaciously when they are in the wrong as when they are in the right, lends to their characters an appearance of inflexible consistency, which is often mistaken for greatness of mind, and not seldom received as a substitute for honesty. In all that related to his kingly office he was the slave of deep-rooted selfishness; and no feeling of a kindly nature ever was allowed access to his bosom whenever his power was concerned."