Charles accordingly renewed his application to Louis and his ministers, but did not succeed in bringing “these people to reason,” as he himself expresses it, or in other words, prevailing on them to accede to his demand. Baffled again in his attempt to induce the French government to engage actively in his cause, Charles contemplated a matrimonial alliance with the czarina, with the view of engaging her in his interest; but his father, to whom he communicated his design, considered it impracticable, and Charles appears to have immediately dropt it.
Notwithstanding the untoward appearance of his affairs, Charles was by no means discouraged; but the promotion of his brother to the cardinalate, which took place about three months after his return from Spain, damped his spirits. Henry had every reason to be dissatisfied with Charles’s conduct towards himself personally; but he made no complaints, and it was only owing to the peevish way in which Charles alluded to him in his letters to his father that James became apprised of his dislike to his brother.[1322] Being of a pious disposition, Henry became desirous of embracing the ecclesiastical state, and resolved to repair to Italy to consult his father upon the subject. As he knew that Charles would object to his departure from Paris, and might possibly take measures to prevent it, he went off without informing him. Charles complained to his father of Henry’s leaving Paris without acquainting him; but whilst James admitted that it was certainly not according to rule that Henry should have gone away without taking leave of Charles in person, he said he could not blame him for it under existing circumstances.
The first notice which Charles received of the intended promotion of his brother was by a letter from his father, dated from Albano on the 13th of June, 1747.[1323] Charles was both grieved and enraged when he received this intelligence, and shut himself up for several hours to give vent to his sorrow or vexation. Hitherto Charles had drunk the health of his father and brother every day at dinner, but he now discontinued that of Henry, and forbade every person about him ever to mention his name in his presence.[1324] The friends of the family regretted exceedingly this step on the part of Henry, which they considered a very imprudent one, so far as the expected restoration of the Stuarts was concerned, as it narrowed their prospects of success; but neither Henry nor James had any ambition for a crown, and the latter intended, if the succession opened, never to assume the diadem.[1325] Both the pope and James notified to the king of France the design of presenting Henry with a cardinal’s hat, and Louis in return signified his approbation of the step.
Among other subjects of uneasiness which pressed heavily upon Charles at this time, was the state of his pecuniary concerns. He still resolutely refused to receive any pension from the French court, and it was perhaps owing to this refusal that the French ministry showed no disposition to pay the allowances which had been granted to his adherents. To relieve the prince’s immediate necessities, his father had sent him an order on Waters, his banker at Paris, for fifteen thousand livres, significantly observing, however, that as Charles had refused the pension which Louis had offered, the Chevalier presumed that he had some other resource to supply his wants. James, however, had taken care that the obstinacy of his son should not stand in the way of Louis’s bounty, and he accordingly directed O’Brien his agent to draw the pension which Charles had refused, to apply the third part thereof for the use of his son, Henry, whilst in France, and to lay out the other two-thirds in the way he should be afterwards directed.[1326] Mr. John Grahame,[1327] in a letter to the Chevalier de St. George, represents the prince as having no visible means of subsistence, and that he could compare his “situation to nothing better than an immense labyrinth, out of which he had not a bit of thread to conduct him.” Charles was too proud to ask his father for aid; but the latter, on hearing of his difficulties, ordered O’Brien to pay forty thousand livres into O’Sullivan’s hands on his account, out of the sum he had drawn on account of Charles’s pension. The prince, however, consistently declined the money, knowing the source whence it came.
In the circumstances in which he was thus placed by his own obstinacy, Charles, who never displayed much generosity towards those who had offended him, was not in the best possible mood to exercise the virtue of forgiveness. His father had repeatedly written him in relation to his threatened seizure of Lord George Murray, and had strongly inculcated the propriety of forgiving a man who had suffered so much in his cause; but Charles disregarded these paternal admonitions. Lord George was very desirous to effect a reconciliation, by making every reasonable submission that could be required of him, and for this purpose left Rome for Paris, where he arrived on the 10th of July. Charles was then living at St. Ouen, in the neighbourhood of Paris, and Lord George having, the day after his arrival, ascertained the place of his residence, intended to proceed thither early on the 12th, to pay his respects to the prince. His lordship was, however, prevented from carrying his intention into effect, by a message from Charles, who, hearing of his arrival in Paris, sent Mr. Stafford, one of his household, to Lord George, to inform him that it was the prince’s wish that he should not appear at St. Ouen, but that he would do well to leave Paris as soon as he could. Lord George requested Stafford to acquaint the prince that he had come to France with no other design but to pay his respects to him, and that he would punctually obey his orders by leaving France.
Notwithstanding frequent disputes with the French ministers, Charles always endeavoured to keep on good terms with their master; and when he defeated the confederates at Laffeldt, he wrote a letter expressive of the great joy he felt on the occasion. As every victory gained over the allies appeared favourable to his cause, he cannot be well blamed for entertaining such a feeling; but the existence of this document subverts the idea generally entertained, that Charles never expressed any satisfaction at the conquests of the French in Flanders. He was no doubt solicitous that Great Britain should maintain her honour in the field and on the ocean; but his patriotism was not so disinterested as to make him prefer that honour to the crown for which he was contending. It was not until he saw that he could no longer depend upon France for aid that his patriotism was roused.
Much as Charles trusted to his personal powers for negotiation, he soon found that it was no easy matter to bring the ministers of Louis “to reason;” and that, to be successful, it was necessary to obtain the aid of some experienced politician. He accordingly looked about him for one in whom he could repose his confidence, and fixed upon Lord Marischal as the person most likely to answer his wishes. To this nobleman, who was then living at Treviso, Charles despatched a letter in the month of August, in which he stated that his father had left him entire master, to employ such persons as were most agreeable to him, and that he might easily believe his first choice would light upon him. He informed him that his desire was that his lordship should join him with all convenient speed, and that he had too good an opinion of his loyalty and regard for his bleeding country to make him have the least doubt of his compliance, especially since all the causes of discontent which his lordship might heretofore have had, were now quite removed. Highly complimentary as this letter was, Lord Marischal declined the honour intended him. He stated that he had not retired from public life till he saw how useless his services were, and must have been had they been continued; and that the broken state of his health required that he should pass the rest of his days in quiet.[1328]
Disappointed in his advances to Lord Marischal, Charles gave himself up entirely to the direction of George Kelly, his secretary, who, it is alleged, was personally obnoxious to the French court. To counteract the rising power of this new favourite, the pernicious influence of whose counsels some of the adherents of the exiled family were already beginning to feel, Sempil, one of the Chevalier’s agents at Paris, by desire of Lochiel and Drummond of Bochaldy, drew up and forwarded a representation to James in the month of June 1747. The Chevalier, who was not a bad judge of mankind, foreseeing the bad consequences that would follow if Kelly was allowed to guide the councils of the prince, had cautioned Charles against his interference shortly after his return from Scotland; but the prince attributed his father’s dislike to Kelly to the misrepresentations of his enemies. In a letter, alluding to some complaints made by Charles against his brother, James observes, “What you now write to me is manifestly the product of Kelly’s malice ... as long as you are directed or influenced by him, depend upon it nothing will go well with you, and you will never have a moment’s quiet yourself.”[1329]
These admonitions, which were repeated after Drummond’s communication, were, however, thrown away upon Charles, who clung to his secretary with as great pertinacity as ever. This predilection for Kelly, if the statement of Sempil is to be credited, ruined the prince’s negotiations with the French ministry, who, according to him, would have entertained a proposal made by the Marquis de Puyzieux, of embarking a force for Scotland on the dissolution of the British parliament; but the design was given up, because the persons in whom Charles seemed to repose his confidence were obnoxious to the French court, and were considered unworthy of trust.[1330]
Whilst the French government evaded Charles’s demand for a supply of troops, it acceded in other respects to his wishes. A regiment was given to Lochiel,[1331] the arrears of the gratuities granted to the Scotch exiles were paid up, and a fixed allowance of thirty-six thousand livres per annum was granted to them, the appropriation of which was left entirely to the prince. Having thus provided for his friends, the French ministry thought that Charles’s repugnance to a pension might be overcome; and accordingly M. de Lally, who was directed to communicate to him the largess granted to his adherents, was also appointed to sound him on the subject of an allowance to himself. Charles, writing to M. de Puyzieux, observed, that he would accept with pleasure even the smallest favour his majesty was disposed to grant; but he begged that nothing should be given him in name of a pension, and that he should be permitted to deny to his English friends, even face to face, that he was in the receipt of it.[1332] It thus appears that Charles’s objection to a pension did not proceed from any disinclination to receive the money, but from an apprehension that the circumstance of his becoming a pensioner of France would injure him with his English friends. It is not known whether the French government acted upon Charles’s suggestion.