[1309] Letter from O’Brien to the Chevalier de St. George, 31st October, 1746, among the Stuart Papers.
[1310] Of the unlimited confidence which these two favourites enjoyed with Charles the Stuart Papers afford abundant proofs. Sheridan in fact directed every thing when Charles was in Scotland, and it was solely owing to his aversion to a hill campaign,—the fatigue of which he said he could not endure,—that Lord George Murray could not prevail upon Charles to desist from engaging the Duke of Cumberland at Culloden; yet so great was the ascendency which Sir Thomas had acquired over the mind of Charles, that the ruinous result which ensued did not in the least weaken it. Edgar announced Sheridan’s death to Charles in a letter dated 2d December, 1746, and sent along with it all the papers found in Sir Thomas’s repositories having relation to the Prince or his affairs, among which was a sketch of a dying speech which Sir Thomas had prepared in case he had been taken and executed. Dr. King insinuates, from the ignorance of Charles, that Sheridan was in the pay of the English government; but it would be doing injustice to the memory of the favourite to believe him guilty of such baseness without direct proofs of his criminality. The Doctor’s words are: “His (Charles’s) governor was a protestant, and I am apt to believe purposely neglected his education, of which, it is surmised, he made a merit to the English ministry; for he was always supposed to be their pensioner. The Chevalier Ramsay, the author of Cyrus, was Prince Charles’s preceptor for about a year; but a court faction removed him.” The illiterateness of Charles is very perceptible in his ignorance of the orthography of French and English. Both in style and orthography they contrast most unfavourably with those of his father, whose epistolary correspondence cannot fail to give the reader a favourable idea of his literary acquirements. Though James appears to have had a good opinion of Sir Thomas, yet after his death he complained bitterly to Charles, in a long and very interesting letter, (that of 3d February, 1747, in the Stuart Papers,) of the conduct of the favourite, and in general of the other persons who obtained the Prince’s confidence. It was James’s deliberate conviction that their object was to corrupt Charles, by withdrawing him from his “duty to God in the first place, and to him in the second!” The sequel of Charles’s unfortunate history seems to confirm this opinion. A most unfavourable sketch of the character of Kelly, the new favourite, is given by Father Myles Macdonell, his own relative, for which see the Father’s letter to the Chevalier de St. George, 4th May, 1747, in the Stuart Papers.
[1311] There are two copies of this memoir among the Stuart Papers. One of them written in the first person, and holograph of the prince, is titled, “Memoir to ye F. K. from me of 10th Nov. 1746.” The other is titled, “Ancien Project de Memoire,” and is written in the third person.
[1312] Statements showing the division of this money, will be found in the Stuart Papers.
[1313] Letter from the Chevalier to Charles, 6th January, 1747.—Stuart Papers.
[1314] Letter from Charles to Louis, 12th January, 1747, in the Stuart Papers. Sir James Stewart appears to have been the person Charles intended to appoint, as there is a draught of a commission in his hand-writing among these papers, bearing the date of 29th December, 1746.
[1315] Letter from Lochiel to the Chevalier de St. George, of 16th January, 1747, among the Stuart Papers.
[1316] Letter from the Chevalier to Prince Charles, 13th January, 1747.
[1317] This circumstance, so disgraceful to the memory of Charles, is mentioned in a letter from Prince Henry to his father, dated Paris, 30th January, 1747, under the signature of John Paterson, a name sometimes assumed by Henry, when corresponding in cipher. The original letter is among the Stuart Papers.
Lord George’s arrival at Rome was announced to Charles by the Chevalier, in a letter dated 21st March, 1747. The following extract places James’s character in a very favourable point of view: “I must tell you that I was much surprised t’other day at the arrival of Lord George Murray in this place. After having absconded many months in Scotland, he found means to come to Holland, and from thence by Venice here. By what Bramston, (the corresponding name of O’Sullivan,) says, I am sorry to find that you have not been pleased with him, but tho’ I questioned Bramston much about him, yet I own I don’t see any motive to suspect his fidelity and loyalty. People may have an odd, and even a wrong way of thinking, and may even fail in something towards ourselves, but may be men of honour and honesty with all that; so that considering his birth, and the figure he made in your service, and that you had never writ to me about him yourself, I thought it would be very wrong in me not to receive him with all kindness, and even distinction. I don’t know how long he will stay here, or how he proposes to dispose of himself, but I understand he has a mind to bring over his lady, and to live privately with her in some retired place. He is publicly here, for he has no measures to keep; and I must do him the justice to say that he never speaks of you but with great respect, and even eloge.” See also the letters among the Stuart Papers from the Chevalier to Charles of 25th April, and 2d and 9th May, 1747, copied also from the original copies in the same collection. All of them, as far as they relate to Lord George, will be read with pleasure, but particularly the first.