1818

was a dark and troubled period,—a period of great private distress,—so that the minds of men were bent with more acerbity than usual upon the redress of public grievances. The country, borne down by debt, harassed by taxation, which had no longer for its excuse a monopoly of commerce, looked naturally enough to the source from which these calamities had flowed. They found the theory and the practice of the constitution at variance, and hearing they had a right to be taxed by their representatives, they thought it hard and unjust that over the great majority of those who taxed them they had no controul. Retrenchment and economy were what they required. They considered parliamentary reform would be the means of producing economy and retrenchment. Public meetings in favour of parliamentary reform were, therefore, held, resolutions in favour of it passed, and petitions in favour of it presented to the two houses of parliament; the energies of a free people were roused, and great excitement prevailed. When a country is thus agitated, a minister must resist with vigour, or yield

[[296]]with grace. Unjust and violent demands should be met with resistance; but sober and legitimate requests, with concession. When weakly opposed, they are obtained by immediate violence; successfully refused, they are put off for a day, or postponed for a week or a year; but they are not got rid of. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, however, were vain enough to think otherwise.

Parliament was opened by commission in January. The speech referred to the continued indisposition of his majesty, and the death of the Princess Charlotte; but without promising an inquiry into the cause of her untimely end! An address was voted in the Commons' House, according to custom, though Sir Samuel Romilly was not wanting in his expressions of severe opposition to the course ministers were pursuing. He stated, "that the despotic conduct of the ministry had produced in the minds of the people a determination to withstand any further infringement upon their rights and privileges."

Totally regardless of the sufferings of an over-burdened people, however, and during the very heavy and calamitous sorrows of the middle and lower classes, the chancellor of the Exchequer had the effrontery to move "that one million of money be raised for the purpose of supplying the deficiency of places of worship belonging to the establishment, by building new churches and chapels of ease, where the increase of population rendered it needful." How applicable are the words of Tartuffe to the advocates of this measure! "With one

[[297]]hand, I have encouraged spies, suborned perjury, and committed murders; and with the other, built churches,—but not with my own money!" The bill passed, and an extra "plume of worldly-mindedness" was consequently placed in the cap of hypocrisy! Oh! that the pure religion of our Saviour should be thus perverted! His kingdom was not of this world, neither did he luxuriate in the "good things" of the earth. Did he wear lawn sleeves and a mitre? Did he loll in gaudy carriages, and look down with supercilious contempt on his poorer brethren? Did he require theatres for his churches, or perfumed divines to preach his gospel? Did he interfere with political matters, and exert his energies to enslave the people? We leave these questions to be answered by those locusts of the land, commonly called bishops of the established church; at the same time we call upon them to reflect, whether, if hereafter they should feel inclined to recall the opportunity of conciliating the respect of the country, they will not have the misfortune of finding it much too late!

If our readers were to look over the singular parliamentary proceedings at this gloomy period of our history, they would be forcibly struck with the littleness, servility, and the utter want of intellectual calibre, so fully set forth in the characters of those who conducted the solemn mockery of legislation. The most unjust and arbitrary laws were put in force, and the public money allowed to be squandered, without the least inquiry. As a proof of this last remark, we need only mention the fact of ninety

[[298]]thousand pounds being voted for the department of the "Master of the Horse," who kept thirty saddle and twenty-eight carriage horses for the use of his majesty, yet the king had never been out of the castle for more than seven years! This disgraceful squandering of money was carried on, too, when honest citizens and affectionate fathers were incapable of providing bread for themselves and families! Indeed, Lord Liverpool seemed resolved to push the country to its utmost verge, by proposing and sanctioning every expensive outlay. He was, with Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth, the author of many plans to perplex, impoverish, and subdue the people, in which plans the bishops most zealously assisted. Every contrivance that had the sanction of the queen was sure to be well-managed, till Justice herself was set at open defiance.

Our readers will recollect our former statements respecting the Princess Charlotte, and we think the circumstance we are now about to relate will not operate against the proofs we have adduced concerning her untimely end.

Dr. Sir Richard Croft, the accoucheur of that lamented princess, had been engaged to attend the lady of the Rev. Dr. Thackeray, at her house, 86, Wimpole-street, Cavendish-square. Sir Richard went there on Monday, the 9th of February, and remained in attendance until Thursday morning, at eleven o'clock, when, finding his continued presence unnecessary, he went out for a short time to fulfil his other engagements. An apartment on the floor

[[299]]above that occupied by Mrs. Thackeray was appointed for the residence of Sir Richard. In this chamber, there were two pistols belonging to Dr. Thackeray, hanging within the reach of Dr. Croft. Sir Richard retired to bed at half-past twelve, and about one, Dr. Thackeray heard a noise, apparently proceeding from the room occupied by Dr. Croft, and sent a female servant to ascertain the cause; she returned, saying, "the doctor is in bed, and I conceive him to be asleep." A short time after, a similar noise was heard, and the servant was sent again. She rapped at the door, but received no answer. This circumstance created alarm; in consequence of which, the door of his apartment was broken open. Here an awful spectacle presented itself. The body of Sir Richard was lying on the bed, shockingly mangled, his hands extended over his breast, and a pistol in each hand. One of the pistols had been loaded with slugs, the other with ball. Both were discharged, and the head of the unfortunate gentleman was literally blown to pieces.

On the inquest, Doctors Latham and Baillie, and Mr. Finch, proved that the deceased had, since the death of the Princess Charlotte, laboured under mental distress. He had frequently been heard to say, that "this lamentable occurrence weighs heavily on my mind, and I shall never get over it." Mr. Finch said, he was well aware that the deceased had been labouring under derangement of intellect for a considerable time past; and he should not have reposed confidence or trust in him on any

[[300]]occasion since the lamented catastrophe alluded to. The jury returned a verdict, "that the deceased destroyed himself while in a fit of temporary derangement."

During the inquest, the newspaper reporters were denied admission, which circumstance gave rise to various rumours of a suspicious tendency. This was certainly an unconstitutional act; but we will, as honest historians, speak candidly upon the subject. Delicacy to surviving friends must not prevent our detail of facts.

It will appear evident, then, that Sir Richard had not been perfectly sane since the ever-to-be-regretted fatal event at Claremont. Was it not therefore astonishing, that his professional as well as other friends, who were suspicious, if not fully aware, of the doctor's derangement, should have been silent upon this important point, and have allowed Sir Richard to continue in the exercise of his professional practice? Did they not, by such silence, contribute to the peril of females in the most trying moment of nature's sorrow? The disinterested reader will, doubtless, join us in our expressions of indignation at such wanton and cruel conduct.

The letter written to Sir Richard, by order of the prince, proves nothing but the folly of those who advised it. That letter was not calculated to remove any of those suspicions respecting the untimely death of the Princess Charlotte, which rolled like heavy clouds over the intelligent minds of the greater portion of the nation; neither was it likely to hush

[[301]]the spirit of inquiry, because its details were evidently meant to prevent any special explanation. The Marquis of Hertford, chamberlain to the regent, well knew, at this period, how to estimate medicinal cause and effect!

Presuming my Lord Bloomfield to have been an actor in "the tragedy," we cannot help thinking that his reward was more than adequate to the services performed. His pension of twelve hundred pounds per annum was dated December, 1817. What extraordinary benefits had he rendered to this oppressed nation to merit such an income? We ought also to mention, that, after this period, we find his lordship named as "envoy and minister-plenipotentiary in Sweden," for which he received the annual sum of four thousand, nine hundred pounds, and, as colonel of artillery, one thousand and three pounds, making in all the enormous annual sum of seven thousand, one hundred, and three pounds!

These remarks are not intended to wound the feelings of private families; but are made with a view to urge a strict investigation into the cause of the Princess Charlotte's death. We are well aware that many great persons have reason to fear the result of such an inquiry, yet the injured ought to have justice administered, even at the "eleventh hour," if it cannot sooner be obtained. Many a murderer has been executed twenty, or even thirty, years after the commission of his crime!

Though at this time ministers had a parliament almost entirely devoted to their wishes, there were a

[[302]]few members of it who vigorously opposed unjust measures, and they could not always carry their plans into execution. The amount solicited for the Duke of Clarence upon his intended marriage with the Princess of Saxe Meiningen is a proof of this; for, although the regent sent a message to the House to accomplish this object, it was at first refused, and the duke did not gain his point till a considerable time afterwards.

In this year, the Duke of Kent was united to a sister of Prince Leopold.

In September, while most requisite to her party, the queen was taken ill. Bulletin followed upon bulletin, and the disorder was reported to increase. Some of the public papers announced, that her majesty had expressed an ardent desire to witness a reconciliation between the Prince and Princess of Wales, as she imagined her dissolution was now near at hand. The report, however, was as false as it was unlikely; for, only a month before this period, spies had been despatched to obtain witnesses, of any description, against the honour of the princess, by which means her enemies hoped to accomplish their most ardent desires. Queen Charlotte's conscience was not of a penetrable nature as her bitter enmity to the Princess of Wales continued even to her death!

With her majesty, it had ever been an invariable maxim, that "might constitutes right;" but the reflections of her mind, while surveying the probability of a speedy dissolution, must have been of a

[[303]]complexion too dreary to be faithfully pictured. She,—who had been the arbitress of the fates of nations, whose commands none dared dispute or disobey, and at whose frown numberless sycophants and dependents trembled,—was now about to face the dread enemy of mankind! The proud heart of Queen Charlotte must have been humbled at the thought of meeting HER Judge, who is said to be "no distinguisher of persons."

During her indisposition, the queen seemed much impressed with the idea that she should recover, and it was not till the 2nd of November that the physicians deemed it requisite to acquaint the queen of her danger. The intelligence was given in the most delicate manner possible; yet her majesty exhibited considerable alarm at the information. It was pressingly hinted by the princesses to their mother, that the sacrament ought to be administered; but the queen positively refused the "holy rite," saying, "It is of no use, as I am unable to take it." One of the princesses immediately said, "You do not mean to say that you murdered the Princess Charlotte?" "No," faintly answered the queen, "but I connived at it!" We pledge ourselves to the truth of this statement, however incredible it may appear to those who have considered Queen Charlotte as "a pattern to her sex." When the general servility of the press to royalty is taken into consideration, it is hardly to be wondered at that people are misinformed as to the real characters of kings and queens. Take the following false and

[[304]]most inconsistent eulogium, copied from the "Atlas" newspaper, as an example of this time-serving violation of truth:

"Queen Charlotte's constant attendance on the king, and her GRIEF FOR THE LOSS OF HER GRAND-DAUGHTER, gained ground on her constitution; and her majesty expired at Kew, on the 17th of November, 1818. In all the relations of a wife and mother, the conduct of the queen had been EXEMPLARY. Pious, without bigotry; virtuous, but not austere; serious, yet capable of the most perfect enjoyment of innocent pleasure; unostentatious, economical, adorned with all domestic virtues, and not without the charities of human nature, the queen had lived respected, and she died full of years and honour, regretted by her subjects, and most by those who knew her best. If her talents were not shining, nor her virtues extraordinary, she never employed the first in faction, nor bartered the second for power. She was occasionally accused of political interference, by contemporary jealousy; but history will acquit her of the charge. She was a strict moralist, though her conduct to one part of her family (the heroic Caroline, we suppose) was perhaps more RIGOROUS than JUST. Her proudest drawing-room was the hearth of her home. Her brightest gems were her children, (heaven save the mark!) and her greatest ambition to set an example of MATRONLY VIRTUE and feminine dignity to the ladies of her adopted country!"

We should absolutely blush for the writer of this paragraph, did we think that he really meant his panegyric to be taken literally. For the sake of common honesty, however, we will not suppose he so intended it; he must be some severe critic who adopted this style as the keenest kind of wit, for

"Praise undeserved is satire in disguise!"

The august remains of this royal lady were, on the 2nd of December, deposited in the vault prepared for their reception, with all the parade

[[305]]usual on such expensive occasions. We will not detain our readers by describing the funeral pomp, though we cannot avoid noticing that the body was not opened, but immediately enclosed in prepared wrappers, and very speedily deposited in the first coffin, which was a leaden one. Indeed, her majesty was not in a fit state to undergo the usual formalities of embalming, &c. Her body was literally a moving mass of corruption.

Let us now sum up the mortal train of evils which were so generously nourished "by the departed," for virtues she had none. The power of royalty may intimidate the irresolute, astonish the uninformed, or bribe the villain; but, as we do not claim affinity with either of these characters, we honestly avow, that her majesty did not deserve the title "of blessed memory." At the commencement of her alliance with the much-to-be-pitied George the Third, she took every advantage of his weakness, and actually directed the helm of government alone, which untoward circumstance England has abundant cause to remember!

The next brother to the king, (Edward) whom we have before mentioned, was most unexpectedly and unaccountably sent abroad, notwithstanding his being next in succession. His royal highness' marriage with a descendant of the Stuarts, though strictly legal, was never acknowledged by Queen Charlotte, and his only child, soon after its birth, was thrown upon the compassionate attention of strangers. As there is something so horrible relative to the death

[[306]]of this amiable duke and duchess, and something so heartless and cruel in the treatment to which their only son has been subjected, we are induced, for the sake of truth and justice, to lay a brief statement of the matter before our readers.

Historians have either been treacherous or ignorant of the circumstances connected with the case of this Duke of York, who was the second son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and next brother of George the Third. Most writers have represented "that he died in consequence of a malignant fever," as we have before mentioned; but one historian ventured to assert that "Edward, Duke of York, was ASSASSINATED in September, 1767, near Monaco, in Italy!" This statement, we are sorry to say, is but too true, which caused the book containing it to be bought up at an immense expense. The unhappy widow of his royal highness was then far advanced in pregnancy, and very shortly after this melancholy, and (to her) irreparable loss, she came over to England, and took up her residence at Haverford West, in South Wales. At this place, her royal highness gave birth to a son, whose baptism was duly entered in the register of St. Thomas' parish. What afterwards became of this illustrious lady, however, is not known; but her infant was, shortly after its birth, conveyed to London, and placed, by George the Third, under the immediate care and protection of a tradesman and his wife, by whom he was represented to be their own son. This tradesman,

[[307]]although only twenty-seven years of age, enjoyed the particular confidence of his majesty, and has been known to walk with the king by the hour, in the gardens adjoining Buckingham House, conversing with all the familiarity of an old acquaintance or an especial friend, and who at all times could command an interview with his majesty, or with the ministers. When about twelve years old, this ill-fated offspring of the duke was placed at Eton, upon which occasion his majesty took especial notice of the youth, and was in the habit of conversing very freely with him. He had not been long at Eton when his majesty allowed him to go with his reputed father to see the hounds throw off at Taplow Heath; a chaise was ordered for this purpose, and they arrived just before the deer were let out. Upon their alighting, the king rode up to them, and expressed his very great satisfaction at the appearance of the youth; and, after asking many questions relative to the arrangements made for him at school, said, "Well, my little fellow, do you be a good boy, and you shall never want friends. Good bye, good bye; the deer will soon be out!" His majesty then rode back to his attendants. Whenever George the Third passed through Eton, it was his invariable practice either to speak to, or inquire after, this youth, in whose welfare he ever appeared deeply interested. From Eton, he was removed to college; and after this period, vexations of an unpleasant nature were experienced by this orphan: his income was too limited, and unkindness and illiberality were too

[[308]]frequently his portion; even during severe indisposition, he was permitted to languish without being supplied with sufficient means to procure the needful restoratives. His life now became little else than one continued scene of unhappiness; his associates at the university were well acquainted with these facts, and appeared deeply interested in his welfare, regretting that the mind and talent of such an amiable and promising youth should be enervated by the severity or inattention of his connexions. But as he had been severely rebuked for making a complaint, and offering a remonstrance, he resolved to suffer in "silent sorrow," much to the injury of his mental enjoyments. During a vacation, and previous to his removal from college, a dispute arose amongst the members of his reputed father's family upon the subject of religion. The debate at length assumed a formidable appearance, and bigotry plainly supplied the place of sound reasoning. The family separated in the evening, each displeased with the other, and all, except one individual, at issue with the royal protégé. Early in the ensuing morning, this dissentient member of the family requested the favour of an interview with the illustrious youth, and remarked, that the occurrence was not a matter of surprise, as the very peculiar circumstances connected with the reputed father of the young gentleman were of a most serious description. "To what do you allude?" said the youth. "You ought to know," answered this honourable friend, "that you have no right to submit to insult here. You are the highest

[[309]]person in this house, and are, by your rank, entitled to the greatest respect from every one. Your pretended father forgets his duty and his engagements, when he permits you to be treated with disrespect; and if his majesty knew these circumstances, your abode would soon be changed; and your profession would be abandoned. The king never would allow an indignity to be offered to you in any way, much less by the person into whose care he has so confidingly entrusted you." "What!" said the young prince, "am I not the son of Mr. ******? but, if I am, why should his majesty take so much interest in my case?" "No," answered his informant, "you are not the son of Mr. ******. But ask no more; my life might probably pay for my explanation!" From this period, the subject of our memoir was treated with the greatest unkindness and personal indignity by almost every member of his reputed father's family. Indeed, the imperious behaviour of the elder branches was such as could not be passed over in silence; in consequence of which, the high-spirited and noble victim was sent back to college for the remainder of the vacation, with little more in his purse than would defray the expenses of the journey; but the command was peremptory! After remaining some time in utter destitution, the royal protégé wrote to request an early supply of cash, naming for what purposes. This appeal was considered as the effect of extravagance and profligacy, and, instead of being properly complied with, was answered with acrimony, every thing the reverse of

[[310]]parental feeling. Under these heart-rending circumstances, did this ill-fated son of Prince Edward labour for nearly four years at the university,—not daring to make any further appeals to the austere, impatient, and arbitrary person, to whose care the king had so fully, though secretly, entrusted him. At length, however, a severe illness was the consequence; and censure, in no very measured terms, was heaped upon the unfeeling character who had so cruelly immolated a promising and worthy young gentleman, and who, he well knew, was of the most illustrious descent. Those who were acquainted with the particulars of the case were most incensed against such heartless conduct. Mr. ****** had undertaken the important charge of seeing this protégé able to realize the ardent wish of his majesty, either as a legal or clerical character, and thereby, in some degree, provided for. But, while his majesty's nephew was refused means to live respectably, and excluded from all youthful amusements, the real sons of his reputed father were allowed all the pleasures and enjoyments of life. At his final removal from college, this ill-treated prince represented to his unfeeling guardian that he should take greater pleasure in pursuing legal to clerical engagements; but his wishes in this, as in most other matters, were totally disregarded, and the church was destined, by arbitrary will, to be his profession. He, therefore, at the proper age, was compelled to take orders, and enter upon a profession he had not chosen. As the home of his reputed father was scarcely to be

[[311]]endured, a curacy was eagerly accepted, and the son of the Duke of York, the nephew of George the Third, was transformed into "a clergyman of the church of England!!!" Here he toiled in an obscure village, scarcely receiving sufficient means to discharge the small demands required for his maintenance!

Shortly after this, the principal of the living died insolvent, and the little remuneration due to the curate could not be obtained. In this distressing state of affairs, the persecuted prince could obtain no settlement from his guardian; yet from comparative nothingness, this man was raised to affluence, and was then living in much style, keeping his carriage and horses, inhabiting a mansion of very superior description, and the whole of his family enjoying every superfluity of life. He, however, on whose sole account this sumptuous appearance was bestowed, was "eating the bread of Carefulness, and reposing upon the couch of Sorrow!" We need not enter more fully into the case of this unfortunate, but worthy, descendant of Prince Edward, than say, that, from the commencement of his studies to a very recent period, he has been the victim of Power! His sufferings and his sorrows have been too great for language to describe; and, but for the blessings of a fine constitution, he must have fallen under them. But, if he be called upon in a suitable manner, we doubt not that he has yet preserved to him sufficient of his natural courage, though in his

[[312]]65th year, to make "False Accusation blush, and Tyranny tremble at Patience!"

We claim the attention of our readers while we offer PROOF that our assertions are founded upon the glorious principle of TRUTH. We have ourselves, to elucidate this matter, examined all the registers of the various parishes in Carnarvonshire and Carmarthenshire, and found every register complete from 1760, until we came to that of St. Thomas, Haverford West, at which place we could not find a single register before the year 1776. To substantiate this fact, we subjoin the following certificate of the parish clerk:

"Haverford West,

"Parish of St. Thomas.

"There are no registers in the possession of the present rector of the above parish, prior to the year 1776.

(Signed) "Joseph Lloyd Morgan,

"Parish Clerk."

"13th Sept., 1831."

Here, then, is a BLANK for which no apology can be received,—no obsequious profession of sorrow or regret can compensate. We presume to declare that if the parish registers throughout the whole of the United Kingdoms be investigated, a similar defect will not be found. We are, therefore, justified in supposing that this defect arose solely and entirely from concerted measures, to keep the subject of our

[[313]]memoir from ever having it in his power to bring legal proof of his noble descent.

The time will probably arrive when we may be permitted to enter more fully into this atrocious business, and then we shall not spare the "Oppressors of Innocence," for truth is bold, and not always to be defied! It would have been better for such oppressors to have never seen the light than to have gained their wicked purposes by such an unmanly sacrifice of the rights of nature. Every individual ought to feel interested in the full and fair explanation of this chicanery; for if such misdeeds are suffered to remain unpunished, a safeguard is offered to future tyrants! Startling facts like these speak volumes, and any honest and upright member of the community will not need more than their simple avowal to rouse his indignation. Such encroachments on the rights of individuals call aloud for retributive justice, and we trust the call will not long be made in vain. Surely there is yet sufficient virtue left amongst us to prevent this once great nation from being sacrificed to the fluctuating interests or wayward prejudices of ministers, or even of a monarch! It is high time to shake off all lethargy! This, as well as many other subjects, which we have exposed,—deserve,—nay, DEMAND,—parliamentary investigation. Hitherto, some dreadful infatuation seems to have presided over the councils of this country. Insatiable ambition has caused all the horrors imposed upon the United Kingdoms, and has plunged a professedly free and great people

[[314]]into debt and disgrace. Indolence now, therefore, is only comparable with the conduct of a prodigal, who has wasted his estate without reflection, and then has not the courage to examine his accounts; far be this from Britons!

From this digression, we return to the consideration of Queen Charlotte's character. The open and virtuous conduct of the Earl of Chatham, and his rebuffs from the queen in consequence thereof affords another proof of the domination which her majesty endeavoured to exercise over all advisers of the crown. The imbecility of the king, owing to circumstances formerly noticed by us, as well as the horrors of a ruinous war, must also be ascribed to the dictatorial conduct of Queen Charlotte. The unjustifiable hatred her majesty imbibed against the Princess of Wales, and the consequent unfeeling demeanour she exhibited to that victim, would of itself be sufficient to refute the praises of her minions, and stamp her name with everlasting infamy. But many other convincing proofs are upon record. Her majesty well knew that the country was bending under an enormous load of debt, which encumbered its inhabitants; she knew of their sufferings and complaints; but the appealing voices of reason and supplication were never deemed worthy of her attention. What traits of "matronly" goodness or natural affection did she exhibit for the Princess Charlotte, when advancing to the hour of her peril? And what proofs have we of "her grief for the loss

[[315]]of her grand-daughter" so satirically ascribed, by the writer quoted a few pages back, to be one of the causes of her majesty's last illness? Alas! her majesty's abject, though horrible, confession on her death-bed, relative to this unfortunate princess, too fatally corroborated the infamy of her general conduct! We need not proceed farther with her majesty's character; this, this unnatural act is enough to chill the blood in the veins of every human being!

At this time, very little was said of the afflicted king; indeed the bulletins assumed such a sameness of expression, that the country thought there was not satisfactory evidence to prove the sovereign was really alive. His majesty's disorder did not require that close and solitary confinement so arbitrarily imposed upon him. If he had been a private gentleman, associated with an affectionate wife and dutiful children, would he not have frequently been persuaded to take an airing in an open carriage? But how infinitely superior were the facilities attendant upon the situation of the king than could possibly be possessed by any private gentleman! His majesty had long been languishing, and was, at the commencement of