In this year, the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland with Mrs. Horton took place. The king appeared electrified when the matter was communicated to him, and declared that he never would forgive his royal brother's conduct, who, being informed of his majesty's sentiments, thus wrote to him: "Sire, my welfare will ensure your own; you cannot condemn an affair there is a precedent for, even in your own person!"—alluding to his majesty's marriage with Hannah Lightfoot. His majesty was compelled to acknowledge this marriage, from the Duke of Cumberland having made a confidant of Colonel Luttrell, brother of Mrs. Horton, with regard to several important state secrets which had occurred in the years 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, and 1763.

[[53]]This Duke of Cumberland also imbibed the family complaint of BIGAMY; for he had been married, about twelve months previous, to a daughter of Dr. Wilmot, who, of course, remonstrated against such unjust treatment. The king solemnly assured Dr. Wilmot that he might rely upon his humanity and honor. The doctor paused, and had the courage to say, in reply, "I have once before relied upon the promises of your majesty! But"—"Hush! hush!" said the king, interrupting him, "I know what you are going to say; but do not disturb me with wills and retrospection of past irreparable injury."

The death of the Earl of Halifax, soon after the close of the session in this year, caused a vacancy; and the Duke of Grafton returned to office, as keeper of the privy seal. His grace was a particular favourite with the queen, but much disliked by the intelligent and reflecting part of the community.

The political atmosphere bore a gloomy aspect at the commencement of

1772,

and petitions from the people were sent to the king and the two houses of parliament, for the repeal of what they believed to be unjust and pernicious laws upon the subject of religious liberty. Several clergymen of the established church prayed to be liberated from their obligation to subscribe to the "Thirty-nine Articles." But it was urged, in opposition to the petitions, that government had an undoubted

[[54]]right to establish and maintain such a system of instruction as the ministers thereof deemed most suitable for the public benefit. But expedience and right are as far asunder, in truth, as is the distance from pole to pole. The policy of the state required some new source from whence to draw means for the secret measures needful for prolonging the existence of its privacy; and it was therefore deemed expedient to keep politics and religion as close together as possible, by enforcing the strictest obedience of all demands made upon the clergy, in such forms and at such times as should best accord with the political system of the queen. In consequence of which, the petitions were rejected by a majority of 217 boroughmongers against 71 real representatives of the people!

An act, passed this session, for "Making more effectual provisions to guard the descendants of the late king, George the Second, from marrying without the approbation of his majesty, his heirs, and successors, first had and obtained," was strenuously opposed by the liberal party in every stage of its progress through both houses. It was generally supposed to have had its origin in the marriage contracted but a few months before by the Duke of Cumberland with Mrs. Horton, relict of Colonel Horton, and daughter of Lord Irnham; and also in a private, though long-suspected, marriage of the Duke of Gloucester to the Countess-dowager of Waldegrave, which the duke at this time openly avowed. But were there not other reasons which

[[55]]operated on the mind of the queen (for the poor king was only a passive instrument in her power) to force this bill into a law? Had she not an eye to her husband's former alliance with the quakeress, and the Duke of York's marriage in Italy? The latter was even more dangerous to her peace than the former; for the duke had married a descendant of the Stuarts!

Lord Chatham made many representations to the king and queen of the improper and injudicious state of the penal laws. He cited an instance of unanswerable disproportion; namely, that, on the 14th of July, two persons were publicly whipped round Covent Garden market, in accordance with the sentence passed upon them; but mark the difference of the crimes for which they were so punished: one was for stealing a bunch of radishes; the other, for debauching his own niece! In vain, however, did this friend of humanity represent the unwise, unjust, and inconsistent tenour of such laws. The king was anxious to alter them immediately; but the queen was decided in her opinion, that they ought to be left entirely to the pleasure and opinion of the judges, well knowing they would not disobey her will upon any point of law, or equity, so called. Thus did the nation languish under the tyrannical usurpation of a German princess, whose disposition and talents were much better calculated to give laws to the brute creation than to interfere with English jurisprudence!