FOOTNOTES:
[5] “The duke has very unwisely taken over three or four boys of the Guards as his aides-de-camp: which will be of great disservice to him, and can be of no use to them.”—Lord Cornwallis to Lt.-Col. Ross, 1784.
[6] Three or four of the Prince of Wales’s letters are given at length. They all prove “the first gentleman and scholar of his day” to have been a very illiterate and unscrupulous jobber. In one of them he proposed to the Governor-General to displace “a black, named Alii Cann,” who was chief criminal judge of Benares, in order that a youth, named Pellegrine Treves, the son of a notorious London money-lender, might be appointed to that office.
Lord Cornwallis replied, that Ali Ibrahim Khan, though a native, was one of the most able and respected public servants in India, and that it would be a most difficult and unpopular step to remove him; and that even if his post were vacant, the youth and inexperience of the money-lender’s son rendered him utterly ineligible for such an important trust. One of the causes of complaint which H. R. H. urged against his royal parent was, that he, also, was not intrusted with high military command.
[7] The sufferings of the British soldiers in Holland, in 1794–5, from the incompetence and negligence of their superior officers, and the waste of public money from the same causes, have scarcely been exceeded during the Crimean war. In Lord Malmesbury’s Diary we find the following entry on the 7th Dec. 1793: “Lord Herbert came to see me. Complained much of the insubordination of the army; that it was greater than could be believed, and that the Guards were so beyond measure. Condemned the conduct of Gage, who had resigned on being refused leave of absence.” On the 16th of Feb. 1794, the Duke of Portland writes to Lord Malmesbury: “The Duke of York will return to the army the latter end of next week. But I cannot help saying that unless the licentious, not to say mutinous, spirit which prevails among our troops, and which originated in, I am sorry to say, and is cultivated by the Guards, is not subdued and extinguished, there is an end of the army.”
[8] His lordship’s country seat.
[9] The Duke.
[10] The following letter, addressed by a subaltern to his commanding officer, is given by the editor of the Cornwallis Papers, as a specimen of the habits, education and discipline of the British army about the year 1800:—
“To Lieut.-Col. ——, — Foot.
“Sir,—I believe (I am a member of the —— mess), if so, I will take the liberty to submit the following argument, viz., every gentleman under the immediate propensity of liquor has different propensities; to prove which, I have only to mention the present instance with respect to myself and Lieut. ——. My propensity is noise and riot—his sleep.
“I ever conceived that in a public mess-room, three things were certain: first, that it was open to every officer who chose to pay the subscription; second, that he might indulge himself with liquor as much as he pleased; and third, that if a gentleman and a member of the mess chose to get intoxicated in the mess-room, that no other officer (however high his rank in the regiment) had a right, or dare order to restrain (not being president) his momentary propensity in the mess-room.
“As such, and this being the case, I must inform you that you have acted in a most unprecedented and unknown (not to say ungentlemanlike) way, in presuming to enter the mess-room as a commanding officer, and to bring a sentry at your back (which you asserted you had) to turn out the amusement (a hand organ) of the company (a stranger being present), and thereby prevent the harmony which it is supposed ought to exist in a mess-room.
“I appeal to you as a gentleman, and if you will answer this letter as such, you at all times know how to direct to
“—— ——,
“Lieut. ——, — Foot.”
[11] Mr. Tierney’s speech in the House of Commons.
[12] Lieut.-Col. Gordon (Sir Willoughby), Military Secretary to the Duke of York, speaks of Lord Cornwallis as “an officer whose estimation in the army could not be exceeded.”—Lieut.-Col. Gordon to Sir A. Wellesley, 1807.
[13] “The staff in Kent seems to be calculated solely for the purpose of placing the defence of the country in the hands of Sir D. Dundas. However he may succeed with other people, I think he cannot persuade Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville that he is a clever fellow; and surely they must have too much sense to believe that it is possible that a man without talents, and who can neither write nor talk intelligibly, can be a good general.”—Lord C. to Lt.-Gen. Ross.
[14] “April 12, 1800. The king much improved. Saw the Duke of York for two hours yesterday, on military matters.
“April 13. The king not so well. Over-excited himself yesterday.”—Diary of the Right Hon. Sir George Rose.
[15] “The Duke of York is certainly in a bad way. All that we can do will be to acquit him of corruption; and indeed I doubt whether we shall be able to carry him so far as to acquit him of suspecting Mrs. Clarke’s practices and allowing them to go on. If we should succeed in both these objects, the question will then turn upon the point whether it is proper that a prince of the blood, who has manifested so much weakness as he has, and has led such a life (for that is material in these days), is a proper person to be intrusted with the duties of a responsible office.
“We shall be beat upon this question, I think. If we should carry it by a small majority, the duke will equally be obliged to resign his office, and most probably the consequence of such a victory must be that the government will be broken up.”—Sir A. Wellesley to the Duke of Richmond, 1809.
[16] “General Dundas is, I understand, appointed commander-in-chief, I should imagine much against the inclination of the king’s ministers; but I understand that it is expected that the Duke of York will be able to resume his situation by the time Sir David is quite superannuated, and it might not be so easy to get a younger or a better man out of office at so early a period.”—Sir A. W. to the Duke of R., 1809.
To Goldenhair.
(FROM HORACE.)
Ah, Pyrrha—tell me, whose the happy lot
To woo thee on a couch of lavish roses—
Who, bathed in odorous dews, in his fond arms encloses
Thee, in some happy grot?
For whom those nets of golden-gloried hair
Dost thou entwine in cunning carelessnesses?
Alas, poor boy! Who thee, in fond belief, caresses
Deeming thee wholly fair!
How oft shall he thy fickleness bemoan,
When fair to foul shall change—and he, unskilful
In pilotage, beholds—with tempests wildly wilful—
The happy calm o’erthrown!
He, who now hopes that thou wilt ever prove
All void of care, and full of fond endearing,
Knows not that varies more, than Zephyrs ever-veering,
The fickle breath of Love.
Ah, hapless he, to whom, like seas untried,
Thou seemest fair! That my sea-going’s ended
My votive tablet proves, to those dark Gods suspended,
Who o’er the waves preside.
Thomas Hood.