1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a49e965c4f1a5473e509bab60d2dafd6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kzOVHwsPajcDxzDPltK1h74yqoghNzX0izU7Y-wBf7Ph0j6g9h8daHP1FS6RoFbZGBU-JkyuCOlzcbKzRUCg-SLT02E2BAoZI-EVShr30NWEVYtv58ZslV4eMNAvz0qb7AgO8xNKLYoQMZHwoCXa0FzZdCJapXxi-pgd0b51VC1a8U-BQmF9QYcgEed5pg7ESPFcTGK7q7DEFIfUCsd4SiH929jIk9rvTyVv%7EJPOLQMFmq1N7wY2tyTibxmAWQi0pCcVTUblZm01dx7drn-oHEZNb7zBAU8Ufl2ECm4LCd2a5rVXhzvq4JoFNUttk-8d3sqWfzpcw0jPqF6C-aL71g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3f1c660371c8ed0e3462884a4c3238d0
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The new Book of Kings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Davidson, John Morrison [1843-1916]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 123, [5] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: List of reviews of the book in four unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T399
Subject
The topic of the resource
Republicanism
Monarchy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The new Book of Kings), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
History
Monarchy
Republicanism
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13f81322efb5ef82706171ef2a41c194.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r85%7E%7Eok0WYAnvCs-721166u--WEAbHUYn9k%7Ee3ru%7EyCTtltbcfqAM-2kfxETzzvrg9u2hqoMJ4EMqwwobbpcv-AMPEUbWz2cWyT7cOm%7E3ZuAX6KTWbXbRwLHVSMtrF3VknXD%7EJuAZM4o39gtENl6GLpug8IyjlvtceTQrp%7EwpT0Cr7s0OA9BiNSMxhayy-ym6yKIsvapdmC20qOTIFtQjlm9ghw6wlWcVEqiy43-nQBowTfv5PFFUDL6CQtsmYD%7EtjSlr1Z-BMOTwowVhheXMblepHiLsJqLUjkQzYG4pNolSJ8A22wt8O4GU1jLqgcjOGvPdwB%7EZVpqpEyTuyGTKw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d26b300a4f6f12489e8692dd5fff1835
PDF Text
Text
THE ENGLISH MONARCHY
AND
AMERICAN REPUBLICANISM.
Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli by
CHARLES
WATTS,
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
On April 3rd, 1872, the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli delivered
a political manifesto in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester. His
statements On the occasion were endorsed generally by the Tory
press throughout the country, and accepted by them as indicat
ing the programme of that “ enlightened ” party. Whatever is
publicly uttered by the hon. gentleman is deemed of more than
ordinary importance in consequence of the prominent position
he occupies as chief of English Conservatism. The principal
topic chosen by Mr. Disraeli for his speech was English Monarchy
and the American Republic ; his object being to show that the
form of Government in this country has certain advantages that
the American Republic does not possess. The reason for the se
lection of this subject maybe given in the speaker’s own words:—
“ The fundamental principles of the [English] Constitution have
been recently impugned and assailed. The flag of the Republic
has been raised, and therefore, gentlemen, I think it is not in
appropriate to the present hour and situation if I make to you
one or two brief remarks on the character of those institutions.”
It is evident that Mr. Disraeli had not only become conscious
of the rapid growth of Republican principles in England, but
that he had made up his mind to do his best to prevent their
further extension. Now there can be no objection to a person
stating why he differs from the Republican programme, supposing
he considers that programme wrong ; but no man has a right to
misrepresent facts, and utter statements before a public audience
which have no authority, and that are unsupported by statistics
or records of history. To show that Mr. Disraeli did this in his
Manchester speech is the object of the present reply.
�2
Before noticing the hon. gentleman’s fallacies, it may conduce
to the better understanding of the question under consideration
to inquire briefly into the nature of Monarchy. Generally
speaking, there are four kinds—absolute, constitutional, heredi
tary, and elective. In addition to these, we have in England an
imported Monarchy, that is, when the throne, being vacant, and
no one of native growth was found to occupy it,we sent to Holland
and Germany, andimported an occupant. True, these importations
have proved expensive, but then that is an “ advantage” shared
principally by the “ people,” and therefore it has commanded
official silence. The present Monarchy in England is supposed
to be a limited, constitutional, and hereditary one. Strictly speak
ing, however, it is not hereditary, because on several occasions that
principle has been set aside in the history of England, and some
of the best writers upon constitutional government agree that,
whenever the people pronounce in favour of an elective Monarchy,
they can have one in strict accordance with the law under which
they live. The hereditary principle is unwise, inasmuch as it pre
supposes that good and intelligent parents must necessarily have
good and intelligent children. This, however, is not so. The late
Prince Albert possessed some excellent qualities that the Prince
of Wales shows no inclination to emulate. Thus,as Dr. Vaughan
observes : “ In a hereditary Monarchy the worst men may come
into the place of the best.” To guard against such an evil is the
duty of every Republican. Moreover, the principle is unjust.
We are not justified in urging that because one generation
prefers a King or Queen, therefore succeeding generations
should do likewise. Each age should be at liberty to elect that
kind of Government which it finds most in accordance with the
genius of the time, and the aspirations of the people who have
to be ruled. There is some truth in designating the English
Monarchy limited. In one particular its limitation is very
perceptible. This, of course, is no reproach to the Queen, who,
from the best of motives, has for some years lived a life of seclu
sion. Her Majesty is a far-seeing woman, and can discern that
in the future of England a Republican form of Government will
obtain; and as a thoughtful sovereign, she absents herself, so that
her subjects may get initiated into the art of self-government,
that when they come to fulfil the duties thereof, they shall not be
taken unawares, but shall be able to perform such duties with
credit to themselves and with a benefit to the commonwealth.
Whilst opposed to all Monarchies, that form certainly may be
pronounced the best which recognises the right of election.
Kings and Queens should win their position by their ability, and
not rule because they have descended from royal parents, whose
only claim to Royalty was that of birth.
To prove the superiority of the English Monarchy over the
American Republic, Mr. Disraeli said that for two centuries
Monarchical governments had prevented a revolution in this
country, and had established order, public liberty, and political
rights. Now, accepting the term revolution in the limited sense
�3
used by Macaulay, it is true that in this country for nearly two
hundred years it has been unknown. But taking revolution, in
its comprehensive signification, as embodying the elements of
public discontent at, and rebellion against, official artifices and
governmental opposition to the people’s rights, England has
experienced many such outbreaks since 1688. What was the
American rebellion but a revolt against the wicked and unjust
obstinacy and oppression of the English Monarchy ? If it had
not been attempted to enforce taxation without representation
upon the inhabitants of America, they might still have been
bound to us by national ties, and then England would have been
saved the disgrace of an expensive and unnecessary war. The
numerous uprisings and manifestations against injustice in India,
in Jamaica, and in Ireland were so many revolutionary pro
tests against the cruel and tyrannical acts of Monarchical mis
rule. And if in England during the last two centuries revolution
has not broken out in its worst forms, it has not been in conse
quence of an enlightened and amicable policy adopted by our
Governments, but ’ rather the result of the forbearance of the
people, who desired to advance their cause by peaceable means.
The Monarchical policy has too often provoked anarchy and
public discord, by withholding reforms from the nation until it
was driven to despair, by insults and procrastination. Where is
the proof that Monarchical Governments have established order
and promoted public liberty, as stated by Mr. Disraeli? Not
in the history of the Derbyshire outbreak and Snow Hill riots of
1816 and 1817 ; not at the Peterloo massacre of 1819 ; not at the
riots of Bristol, Nottingham, and other towns in ^832; not
during the struggles for Free Trade, Catholic Emancipation, the
admission of Jews into the Legislature, and for Parliamentary
Reform. In connection with these movements, the conduct of
the Governments was such as to produce the very opposite of
order. They refused to grant what the people required until
there was “ no alternative but concession, or the horrors of civil
war.” At the close of the last, and in the early part of the present,
century, great efforts were made to obtain Parliamentary Reform
and an improvement of the land laws. And how were these
efforts met by the “ powers that be ?” Public petitions were
unheeded, supplications were disregarded, and traps were laid
by the Government to catch within the clutches of the law the
leading agitators of the time. Dr. Vaughan says the Govern
ment “ instituted a spy system, which was made to spread itself
everywhere; and miscreants, who could not detect treason to
satisfy their employers, were careful to stimulate and sometimes
to invent it. Hence came a long series of State prosecutions, in
which law was so perverted, or so openly violated, that each one
of them, in place of removing disaffection, multiplied it mani
fold........ Men of the most worthless character were accepted as
witnesses ; and juries who wanted evidence managed to pro
nounce the verdict of ‘ guilty ’ in the absence of it.” Even Sir
Samuel Romilly declared that “he believed in his conscience
�4
the whole of the Derbyshire insurrection was the work of persons
sent by Government.”
The State prosecutions that took place a little more than half
a century since will prove how reliable Mr. Disraeli’s statement
is, that Monarchical rule has favoured political rights and public
liberty. The trials of Muir and Palmer in Scotland, and Hardy,
Tooke, Thelwall, Cobbett, and Leigh Hunt in England, reveal
to us the fact that when Monarchical influence was paramount,
the solitude of a prison and heavy fines were the rewards of
those who sought to advance the social and political condition
of society. When and where has the throne of England ever
pleaded for the liberty of the people ? When has it attempted
to vindicate the rights of man ? or to extend that national freedom
which is the birth-right of every citizen ? Upon what page of
history is it recorded that modern progress has sprung from
Monarchy ? The liberties we now have were dearly bought by
the energies and self-sacrifice of those brave men whose aspira
tions and labours were sought to be crushed by royalist intrigues
and aristocratic exclusiveness. The lever that impelled forward
political and social freedom was found among the masses, apart
altogether from the occupants of the throne. For, as recorded
by Cassell, in his “ History of England,” “ whilst Royalty sat in
emblematic darkness, the people were breaking into light and
power by the efforts of genius born amongst them.”
The right hon. gentleman, in order to prove that Monarchy is
a national benefit, referred to the reign of George III. Now,
it is only reasonable to suppose that in Mr. Disraeli’s opinion
this sovereign was the best that could be cited as illustrative of
the alleged advantages of Royalty. A glance, therefore, at the
condition of society under George III. will enable us fully to
appreciate the value pf Monarchical “influence” on the progress
and well-being of the country. The following facts are taken
from pages 570, 571, and 572, vol. vi., of Cassell’s “ History of
England —-“George III. could not comprehend the right of
America to resist arbitrary taxation; he could as little comprehend
the right of his subjects to have full freedom of conscience, but
opposed doggedly the emancipation of the Catholics on account
of their creed. To all other reforms he was equally hostile, and his
Government and his son had, to the hour of his death, rigidly main
tained the same principles of rule. They had, as we have seen,
done their best to destroy the freedom of the press, the freedom
of speech, and the right to assemble and petition for the redress
of grievances. They had turned loose the soldiery on the people
exercising this right, and had armed the magistracy with full
powers to seize any person whom they pleased to suspect of free
ideas ; and having shut them up in prison had suspended the
Habeas Corpus Act, to keep them there without a hearing during
their pleasure. Never in the history of England, since the days
of the Stuarts, had there been so determined an attempt to
crush the national liberties as toward the end of this reign.......
The same reluctance had always marked the mind of George
�5
III. to reform the penal code as to reform political abuses.
During his period of sanity he continued to behold unmoved
the frightful ferocity of the criminal code, and to sign, unshudderingly, death-warrants for men and women, some of the
latter with children in their arms, for the theft of a sheep, or of
a few yards of calico.......The same darkness and apathy existed
on the subject of education. The great bulk of the people during
the Georgian period were almost wholly unable to read.” This
monarch’s “ influence,” no doubt, was great on the religion of
the time, for the same historian records that “ the Christianity
of the reign of George III. was a bloody farce, and an abomina
tion.” If this is the state of society to result from the influence of
Royalty, England will do well to get rid of it as speedily as
possible. For a full and correct account of what George III.
did for this nation, the reader is referred to Mr. C. Bradlaugh’s
“ Impeachment of the House of Brunswick,” where the deeds of
that worthy monarch are faithfully recorded.
Mr. Disraeli’s next statement in favour of Monarchy was that
this country “ is properly represented by a Royal Family.” This
sentence is the very opposite of truth. When has Royalty re
presented the intelligence, the industry, or the poverty of the
people ? What great literary or scientific production has ever
emanated from the wearer of the English Crown ? Indolence
and luxurious wealth have too often surrounded the throne, while
those who have been compelled to support it have had to “ toil
night and day ” amidst penury and squalid wretchedness. As
a nation we boast, among our characteristics, virtue, honour,
domestic purity, and benevolence. But in what Royal Family,
within the two hundred years mentioned by Mr. Disraeli, have
these characteristics found their representative ? Was virtue
represented by Charles II., who kept so many mistresses, and
had such a host of illegitimate children that no historian has
committed himself by naming the number of either? “No
man,” says Cassell, “ ever saddled the country with such a troop
of bastards ” as did Charles 11. Among the numerous progeny
resulting from his licentiousness may be mentioned the Dukes
of Monmouth, Southampton, Grafton, Northumberland, St.
Albans, and Richmond. Truly, these aristocratic families had
a noble origin ! Writing of this king, Buckle says : “ With the
exception of the needy profligates who thronged his Court, all
classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a
drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite ; who had neither shame
nor sensibility ; and who in point of honour was unworthy to
enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects.” Did James
II. represent the honour of the country when he made secret
arrangements with Louis of France, whereby he sacrificed
England’s prestige and integrity for so many bribes, one alone
amounting to 500,000 crowns, which was followed by a second
remittance of two million livres ? His dishonour was only
equalled by his hypocrisy, for when he wanted sums of money
voted him by Parliament, he declared that he had “ a true
�6
English heart;” and when soliciting bribes from the French’
monarch, he proclaimed that his “ heart was French.” James 11,
represented nothing that was noble and true. “ He hoped to
turn a free Government into an absolute Monarchy,” but in this
he failed; and having disregarded the rights of the people, and
defied their wishes, he was driven from the throne. His fate
should be a warning to future would-be monarchs. Were the
wishes of the country represented by William III., in whose reign
commenced an extensive warfare, a reckless expenditure, and
the official inauguration of our National Debt ? In the twelve
years Queen Anne occupied the throne, she not only sided with
the Tories in their frequent quarrels with the Whigs, but she
raised the funded debt in that period from ^12,600,000 to
^36,000,000. Was this the Royal mode of illustrating the progress
and economy of the country ? Of domestic purity, as exhibited
within the domain of Royalty, but one instance shall be given,
and that from Mr. Disraeli’s king par excellence, George III.,
of whom Washington Wilkes, on pages 130—1 of his history of
the first half of the present century, writes :—“ It is generally
supposed that he was a model of domestic morality ; whereas he
was either a seducer or a bigamist........ It is not common for
virtuous parents to bring up a whole family of licentious profli
gates ; and yet what family ever exhibited such a troop of the
most shameless and sensual ones as that of George III. ? He
saw his sons seduce and abandon one woman after another, and
he could not reprimand them ; for he knew his own story better
than they who now act the historian seem to do.” No doubt,
by some, Queen Victoria is supposed to be a true representative
of benevolence. Well, if to give away portions of the money
that has been annually voted by Parliament for that purpose,
constitutes benevolence, then Her Majesty may be entitled to
that honour. But the record of sums given from the Queen’s
private .purse for benevolent purposes is difficult to find. View
ing, apart from class interest, the characteristics of the country,
and the conduct of Monarchy, it will require a Conservative
genius to discover how the former have been represented by the
latter.
Mr. Disraeli’s attempt to prove that the English Monarchy
was less expensive than the American Republic was a perversion
of facts, and a misrepresentation of figures. He said that her
Majesty had a considerable estate in the country which she had
given up, and the revenues from them had gone into the public
exchequer. The hon. gentleman did not inform us what estates he
alluded to. At the present moment the Queen is in possession of
large estates at Balmoral, at Osborne, and in the West of London,
the revenues of which the country does not receive. Did Mr.
Disraeli refer to the Crown lands ? If so, they never belonged to
the Queen, and, therefore, she could not have given them up.
Is it, however, correct to allege that the revenues derived from
the Crown lands are equal to the annual sum we pay to the Royal
Family ? That sum, according to the Blue Book and other
�official'documents, amounts to £692,373. This does not, it should
be observed, include the entire cost of Monarchy, but simply
represents the net cash paid in one year to and for the Royal
Family. Now, towards this £692,373, what is obtained fromthe
Crown lands? There was paid into the Exchequer in 1847,
.£68,000; in 1854, £272,000; in 1855—6, .£260,000 ; in 1870—1,
£385,000 ; and for the present financial year the amount named
is £375,000. Thus it will be seen that until the last few years,
the Crown land receipts were exceedingly low, and even now
they do not equal half the cost of the Queen and her family.
Mr. Disraeli said : “ I will deal with the cost of sovereignty in
the United States of America. Gentlemen, there is no analogy
between the position of Queen Victoria and the President of the
United States.” There is much truth in this remark; there is no
analogy between the two. The President of the United States
has to work; and the Queen as the right hon. gentleman re
marked on a former occasion, had become “physically and morally
incapacitated from performing her duties.” A man who aspires
to the Presidential chair must possess political ability, while a
knowledge of politics has not been deemed a necessary qualifica
tion in the occupant of the English throne. Besides, the Queen’s
salary is £385,000 a year, and the President’s is but £3,750.
In dealing with the relative costs of the two forms of Govern
ment, Mr. Disraeli did not put the case fairly. He was careful
to speak of the cost of the American Cabineg, but he never men
tioned the cost of our English Cabinet. The English Cabinet is
composed of sixteen members, who receive annually between
them in salaries £66,000. The American Administrative Depart
ment is composed of seven members, who receive among them
£8,400. In England some members get £5,000, others £7,500,
and one as much as £10,000 per year. In America no member
gets more than £1,200. Then we have the entire administration,
for which we pay, in salaries alone, £176,718, which, with the
£45,023 for expenses of the House of Lords, and £49,806 for the
House of Commons, together with £692,373 paid to the Royal
Family, make the cost of the English Government to be
.£963,920, while, as admitted by Mr. Disraeli himself, the
Republic in America costs only between £700,000 and
£800,000. And out of this sum the Americans pay their
representatives, an advantage we should do well to emulate ;
for if men are sent to Parliament to do our work, they ought to
be paid for it. If that were done, we should not find so many
empty benches as we do when the money of the country is being
voted away. In America, moreover, the sovereignty is the people.
There the people pay to rule themselves, while here we pay
Royalty to rule us. In America the sovereignty supports itself; in
this country it is supported by something outside of itself. Surely
then that which is self-supporting is more economical than that
which depends on something extraneous for its existence.
In
America its £700,000 or £800,000 are distributed among nearly
five hundred persons, but in England the £963,920 are given to
�8
less than one hundred individuals. So that in this country about
one hundred Government officials cost over £ 163,000 more than
five times that number in America.
There is a striking contrast also in the expenditure for diplo
macy in the two countries. As shown by Mr. Bradlaugh, in his
recent letter to Mr. Disraeli, America pays her Ambassador in
London a yearly salary of £3,215, and the total cost of the
American Embassy here is £4,336. Our Ambassador at New
York receives the sum of £5,000 per year, and an annual allow
ance of £1,000 for house rent, and the total cost of our Embassy
in America is ,£8,150, or nearly double. The Americans pay their
Ambassador at Paris £3,670, and the total cost of the Embassy
is ,£4,146. We give our Parisian Ambassador £10,000, and the
total cost of our Embassy is £13,595. Thus diplomacy in France
costs America less than one-third of our expenditure. In Eng
land the Lord Chief-Justice receives an annual salary of £8,000,
while the same functionary in America is paid £1,700 a year.
Many other instances could be given to show that Mr.
Disraeli was decidedly inaccurate in his comparisons of the ex
penses of the two countries. But, leaving particular departments,
what is the total cost of each nation ? The general cost of the
Governmentof Americafor 1871 was£s8,012,584,while the general
cost of England was £69,698,539 12s. 2d. The advantage to
America will appear the greater when we remember that last year
her population was 38,555,983 persons ; Great Britain and Ire
land 31,817,108. Territory of Great Britain and Ireland is about
119,924 square miles ; United States, 2,933,588 square miles.
Notwithstanding the much larger population, and the greater
extent of territory, the Republic has a much less expenditure
than the Monarchy.
Too much importance is not here attached to what has been
termed the “ cheap argument.” Because an article is cheap, it
does not therefore follow that it is preferable to that which is
more expensive. And the present examination of the relative
costs of the American and English forms of Government has
been to show, that in his speech the Right Hon. Benjamin Dis
raeli stated the very opposite of facts. True economy consists
in the usefulness of that which is purchased. Monarchy is dear
at any price, because it lacks the elements of good government.
The basis of all sound legislation is the public will, made known
through a fair and comprehensive system of representation; and
as this advantage is recognised and enforced by Republicanism,
its claims are established as superior to Royalty, even if it were
not less expensive.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Disraeli, Benjamin [1804-1881]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: [Disraeli's speech delivered April 3rd, 1872 in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4944
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy
Republicanism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f6c6f47b16672257890e869277491a69.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BYzicbQjsOkjPjVDFFu5ruqUuktvd3S0uQQEmcFWtTq9BvdGSupm6EbvDqKqQVqsnD-r9iwHBgq034SbB1yRh0V-booHCRT%7EN9QKpMb%7Ere8eksVMX77NAuyNYqG1Cx7p0Fs7F9aWg4r1Mwt%7E%7EGGYnUkQu4vSnrjy5%7EEWW85HEWRSpEL6JBNtzjCnzyTBdOO1D2OjjtuolV7MaDAfW-Zyvi3Z8Azpb%7ENGQJxTXlND7G%7ETuQ6kxRwtBqNiCMQ%7E8tRAA0CVroB1vPelVLK47LBdpejJJORZsLME-fNQg1oqaEPtTu%7EtwPXXSNeEKut4iEppWnIzVQigMI8V2kLUMqLqaw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f263ae1b6478ba7e66b27e80858e84cb
PDF Text
Text
. ..... ............ .
�IMPEACHMENT
OF THE
HOUSE OF BRUNSWICK.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
[second EDITION,
REVISED
AND
LARGELY
RE-WRITTEN.]
LONDON:
Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
�•
■
■;
•
,, <!';>;< ’
■•
£f>rt
■'
,
•» '<<.}"■ • -n
0<.s
9.T
J
? jjljup
;
■
■ <
J'<vT(r
*■»/
if!■ uh’
1
■
’’•I.T'n .If ;>
■
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
In re-writing and enlarging the matter of this pamphlet, I
have become so sensible of its many defects, that were it
not for the pressing demands for an immediate edition, I
should be inclined to wait. Each day’s research amongst
the correspondence of Waldegrave, Cowper, Temple, Rose,
Grenville, Walpole, North, Castlereagh, Holland, Pitt, Ward,
Malmesbury, Buckingham, Fox, Grey, Wellington, &c., &c.,
brings out new facts to assist my Impeachment. The first
edition has received from the press much abuse, and save
one article, in the Gentlemans Magazine, to which I give
a special reply,, but little criticism. It has been denounced
as treasonable, and threats, varying from indictment to
menace, even of physical violence, have been inserted in
respectable journals. My answer is this improved edition,
in which I have found no reason to soften a single word.
The matter in these pages has been delivered as lectures
in some of the finest halls in Great Britain, and before
crowded, and not only orderly, but enthusiastic audiences.
At least eighty thousand different persons have listened to
the statements here printed; discussion and opposition have
been invited, none worthy mention has been offered. It is
said that I try to throw upon the Brunswick family the whole
blame of misgovernment. Not quite; I blame also the
people that they have permitted an inefficient and mischief
working family to rule so long. It is said that I seek to
make the present members of the Royal Family responsible
for the vices and incapabilities of their predecessors. This
is not so; I seek to show that the Family exhibits no govern
mental capacity, and that even to-day the aspirants for the
�iv
Preface.
Throne have no such high merit as shall redeem or separate
them from the consequences of the judgment I seek to obtain
from my fellow countrymen. I only ask a judgment to be
pronounced in the Parliament House, and I know that be
fore this can be feared or hoped for, there is hard work to
be done in enlightening the British people in the history of
the last two hundred years.
This is not even a Republican pamphlet. The virtues or
vices of the Brunswicks have no part—for or against—in
the discussion of Republicanism. Here is only a conten
tion that our Monarchy is elective, and that the people have
the right and duty to make another selection. I am, it is true,
a Republican, but while I hope and work for the spread of
Republican views, I do not desire a fierce, a sudden, change.
I would, rather than have a Republic won by force, hope
that an English-thinking ruler, chosen by the suffrages of
the nation, with pride for those British names which have
carried our literature through the world, might do better for
us than a foreign family—foreign to us alike in their memo
ries, their language, their inter-marryings, and their hopes.
If, however, it should in this country have at last to come
to a question of Republic, or another George IV., then I
can see only one reply, and I can hear scores of thousands
of my fellow-countrymen training themselves to give it.
C. BRADLAUGH.
�IMPEACHMENT
OF THE
HOUSE OF BRUNSWICK.
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTORY.
By statutes of the 12 and 13 Will. III., and 6 Anne c. 11, Article
2, the British Parliament, limiting the Monarchy to members of
the Church of England, excluded the Stuarts, and from and
after the death of King William and the Princess Anne without
heirs, contrived that the Crown of this kingdom should devolve
upon the Princess Sophia, Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and
the heirs of her body, being Protestants. Heirs failing to Anne,
although seventeen times pregnant, and Sophia dying about
seven weeks before Anne, her son George succeeded under
these Acts as George I. of England and Scotland.
It is said, and perhaps truly, that the German Protestant
Guelph was an improvement on the Catholic Stuart, and the
Whigs take credit for having effected this change in spite of the
Tories. This credit they deserve ; but it must not be forgotten
that it was scarce half a century before that the entire aristo
cracy, including the patriotic Whigs, coalesced to restore to the
throne the Stuarts, who had been got rid of under Cromwell.
If this very aristocracy, of which the Whigs form part, had
never assisted in calling back the Stuarts in the person of
Charles II., there would have been no need to thank them for
again turning that family out.
The object of the present essay is to submit reasons for the
repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union, so far as the suc
cession to the throne is concerned, after the abdication or demise
of the present monarch. It is of course assumed, as a point
upon which all supporters of the present Royal Family will
agree, that the right to deal with the throne is inalienably vested
in the English people, to be exercised by them through their
representatives in Parliament. The right of the members of
the House of Brunswick to succeed to the throne is a right
accruing only from the Acts of Settlement and Union, it being
clear that, except from this statute, they have no claim to the
throne. It is therefore submitted that should Parliament in its
wisdom see fit to enact that after the death or abdication of her
present Majesty, the throne shall no longer be filled by a mem
�6
The House of Brunswick.
ber of the House of Brunswick, such an enactment would be
perfectly within the competence of Parliament. It is further
submitted that the Parliament has full and uncontrollable autho
rity to make any enactment, and to repeal any enactment here
tofore made, even if such new statute, or the repeal of any old
statute, should in truth change the constitution of the Empire,
or modify the character and powers of either Parliamentary
Chamber. The Parliament of the English Commonwealth,
which met on April 25th, 1660, gave the Crown to Charles II.,
and the Parliament of the British Monarchy has the undoubted
right to withhold the Crown from Albert Edward Prince of
Wales. The Convention which assembled at Westminster on
January 22nd, 1688, took away the Crown from James II., and
passed over his son, the then Prince of Wales, as if he had been
non-existent. This Convention was declared to have all the
authority of Parliament—ergo, Parliament has admittedly the
right to deprive a living King of his Crown, and to treat a
Prince of Wales as having no claim to the succession.
In point of fact two of the clauses of the Act of Settlement
were repealed in the reign of Queen Anne, and a third clause was
repealed early in the reign of George I., showing that this par
ticular statute has never been considered immutable or irrepealable. It is right to add that the clauses repealed were only of
consequence to the nation, and that their repeal was no injury to
the Crown. The unbounded right of the supreme Legislature
to enlarge its own powers, was contended for and admitted in
1716, when the duration of Parliament was extended four years,
a triennial Parliament declaring itself and all future Parliaments
septennial. Furthermore, it has been held to be sedition to
deny the complete authority of the Irish Parliament to put an
end to its own existence.
It has been admitted to be within the jurisdiction of Parlia
ment to give electoral privileges to citizens theretofore unenfran
chised ; Parliament claims the unquestioned right to disfran
chise persons, hitherto electors, for misconduct in the exercise
of electoral rights, and in its pleasure to remove and annul any
electoral disability. The right of Parliament to decrease or in
crease the number of representatives for any borough, has never
been disputed, and its authority to decrease the number of Peers
sitting and voting in the House of Lords was recognised in pass
ing the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill, by which several
Bishops were summarily ejected from amongst the Peers. It
is now submitted that Parliament possesses no Legislative right
but what it derives from the people, and that the people are
under no irrevocable contract or obligation to continue any
member of the House of Brunswick on the throne.. In ordei
to show that this is not a solitary opinion, the following Parlia
mentary dicta are given :—
.
•
The Honourable Temple Luttrell, in a speech made in the
House of Commons, on the7th November, 1775, showed “that of
thirty-three sovereigns since William the Conqueror, thirteen
�The House of Brunswick.
7
only have ascended the throne by divine hereditary right...... The
will of the people, superseding any hereditary claim to succession,
at the commencement of the twelfth century placed Henry I. on
the throne,” and this subject to conditions as to laws to be made
by Henry. King John was compelled “ solemnly to register an
assurance of the ancient rights of the people in a formal manner;
and this necessary work was accomplished by the Congress at
Runnymede, in the year 1115. “ Sir, in the reign of Henry 111,
(about the year 1223), the barons, clergy, and freeholders under
standing that the King, as Earl of Poictou, had landed some of
his continental troops in the western ports of England, with a
design to strengthen a most odious and arbitrary set of ministers,
they assembled in a Convention or Congress, from whence they
despatched deputies to King Henry, declaring that if he did not
immediately send back those Poictouvians, and remove from his
person and councils evil advisers, they would place upon the
throne a Prince who should better observe the laws of the land
Sir, the King not only hearkened to that Congress, but shortly
after complied with every article of their demand, and publicly
notified his reformation. Now, Sir, what are we to call that as
sembly which dethroned Edward II. when the Archbishop of
Canterbury preached a sermon on this Text, 1 The voice op the
people is the voice of God ?’ ” “ A Prince of the house of Lancas
ter was invited over from banishment, and elected by the people
to the throne ” on the fall of Richard II. “I shall next proceed
to the general Convention and Congress, which in 1461, enthroned
the Earl of March by the name of Edward IV., the Primate of
all England collecting the suffrages of the people.” “ In 1659,
a Convention or Congress restored legal Monarchy in the person
of Charles II.”
William Pitt, on the 16th December, 1788, being then Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, contended that “the right of providing
for the deficiency of Royal authority rested with the two remain
ing branches of the legislatureand again, “ on the disability of the
Sovereign, where was the right to be found ? It was to be found
in the voice, in the sense of the people, with them it rested.”
On the 22nd December, Mr. Pitt said that Mr. Fox had con
tended that “ the two Houses of Parliament cannot proceed to
legislate without a King.” His (Mr. Pitt’s) answer was : “ The
conduct of the Revolution had contradicted that assertion; they
had acted legislatively, and no King being present, they must,
consequently, have acted without a King.”
Mr. Hardinge, a barrister of great repute, and afterwards
Solicitor-General and Judge, in the same debate, said : “The
virtues of our ancestors and the genius of the Government accu
rately understood, a century ago, had prompted the. Lords and
Commons of the realm to pass a law without a King ; and a law
which, as he had always read it, had put upon living record this
principle: ‘That whenever the supreme executive hand shall
have lost its power to act, the people of the land, fully and freely
represented, can alone repair the defect.’”
�8
The House of Brunswick.
On the 26th December, in the House of Lords, discussing the
power to exclude a sitting Monarch from the throne, the Earl of
Abingdon said: “Will a King exclude himself? No ! no!
my Lords, that exclusion appertains to us and to the other
House of Parliament exclusively. It is to us it belongs, it is our
duty. It is the business of the Lords and Commons of Great
Britain, and of us alone, as the tustees and representatives of the
nation.” And following up this argument, Lord Abingdon con
tended that in the contingency he was alluding to, “the right to
new model or alter the succession, vests in the Parliament of
England without the King, in the Lords and Commons of Great
Britain solely and exclusively.”
Lord Stormont, in the same debate, pointed out that William
III. “possessed no other right to the throne than that which he
derived from the votes of the two Houses.”
The Marquis of Lansdowne said : “One of the best constitu
tional writers we had whs Mr. Justice Foster, who, in his book
on the ‘ Principles of the Constitution/ denies the right even of
hereditary succession, and says it is no right whatever, but
merely a political expedient...... The Crown, Mr. Justice Foster
said, was not merely a descendable property like a laystall, or a
pigstye, but was put in trust for millions, and for the happiness
of ages yet unborn, which Parliament has it always in its power
to mould, to shape, to alter, to fashion, just as it shall think
proper. And in speaking of Parliament,” his Lordship said,
“ Mr. Justice Foster repeatedly spoke of the two Houses of
Parliament only.”
My object being to procure the repeal of the only title under
which any member of the House of Brunswick could claim to
succeed the present sovereign on the throne, or else to procure a
special enactment which shall for the future exclude the Brunswicks, as the Stuarts were excluded in 1688 and 1701, the follow
ing grounds are submitted as justifying and requiring such repeal
or new enactment:—
1st. That during the one hundred and fifty-seven years the
Brunswick family have reigned over the British Empire, the
policy and conduct of the majority of the members of that
family, and especially of the various reigning members, always
saving and excepting her present Majesty, have been hostile to
the welfare of the mass of the people. This will be sought to
be proved at length by a sketch of the principal events in the
reign of each monarch, from August 1st, 1714, to the present
date.
2nd. That during the same period of one hundred and fifty
seven years, fifteen-sixteenths of the entire National Debt have
been created, and that this debt is in great part the result of
wars arising from the mischievous and pro-Hanoverian policy
of the Brunswick family.
3rd. That in consequence of the incompetence or want of
desire for governmental duty on the part of the various reigning
members of the House of Brunswick, the governing power of
�The House of Brunswick.
9
the country has been practically limited to a few families who
have used government in the majority of instances as a system
of machinery for securing place and pension for themselves and
their associates ; while it is submitted that Government should
be the best contrivance of national wisdom for the alleviation
of national suffering and promotion of national happiness. Earl
Grey even admits that “ Our national annals since the Revolu
tion of 1688 present a sad picture of the selfishness, baseness,
and corruption of the great majority of the actors on the political
stage.”
4th. That a huge pension list has been created, the recipients
of the largest pensions being in most cases persons who are
already members of wealthy families, and. who have done nothing
whatever to justify their being kept in idleness at the national
expense, while so many workers in the agricultural districts are
in a state of semi-starvation ; so many toilers in large works in
Wales, Scotland, and some parts of England, are in constant
debt and dependence ; and while large numbers of the Irish
peasantry—having for many generations been denied life at home
—have until lately been driven to seek those means of existence
across the sea which their own fertile land should have amply
provided for them.
5th. That the monarchs of the Brunswick family have been,
except in a few cases of vicious interference, costly puppets,
useful only to the governing aristocracy as a cloak to shield the
real wrongdoes from the just reproaches of the people.
6th. That the Brunswick family have shown themselves utterly
incapable of initiating or encouraging wise legislation. That
George I. was shut out practically from the government by his
utter ignorance of the English language, his want of sympathy
with British habits, and his frequent absences from this country.
A volume of history, published by Messrs. Longmans in 1831,
says that “ George I. continued a German princeling on the
British throne—surrounded still by his petty Hanoverian satel
lites, and so ignorant even of the language of his new subjects,
that his English minister, who understood neither French nor
German, could communicate with him only by an imperfect
jargon of barbarous Latin.” He “ discarded his wife, and had
two mistresses publicly installed in their Court rights and privi
leges.” Earl Grey declares that “ the highly beneficial practice
of holding Cabinet Councils without the presence of the sovereign
arose from George the First’s not knowing English.” Leslie
describes George I. as altogether ignorant of our language, laws,
customs, and constitution. Madame de Maintenon writes of
him as disgusted with his subjects. That George II. was utterly
indifferent to English improvement, and was mostly away in
Hanover. Lord Hervey’s “ Memoirs ” pourtray him as caring
for nothing but soldiers and women, and declare that his highest
ambition was to combine the reputation of a great general with
that of a successful libertine. That George III. was repeatedly
insane, and that in his officially lucid moments his sanity was
�10
The House of Brunswick.
more dangerous to England than his madness. Buckle says of
him that he was “ despotic as well as superstitious........Every
liberal sentiment, everything approaching to reform, nay, even
the mere mention of inquiry, was an abomination in the eyes of
that narrow and ignorant prince.” Lord Grenville, his Prime
Minister, said of him : “ He had perhaps the narrowest mind of
any man I ever knew.” That George IV. was a dissipated,
drunken debauchee, bad husband, unfaithful lover, untrustworthy
friend, unnatural father, corrupt regent, and worse king. Buckle
speaks of “ the incredible baseness of that ignoble voluptuary.”
That William IV. was obstinate, but fortunately fearful of losing
his crown, gave way to progress with a bad grace when chica
nery was no longer possible, and continued resistance became
dangerous.
7th. That under the Brunswick family, the national expendi
ture has increased to a frightful extent, while our best posses
sions in America have been lost, and our home possession,
Ireland, rendered chronic in its discontent by the terrible mis
government under the four Georges.
And 8th. That the ever-increasing burden of the national
taxation has been shifted from the land on to the shoulders of
the. middle and lower classes, the landed aristocracy having,
until very lately, enjoyed the practical monopoly of tax-levying
power.
CHAP. II.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE I.
On August ist, 1714, George Lewis, Elector of Hanover, and
great-grandson of James I. of England, succeeded to the throne;
but being apparently rather doubtful as to the reception he
would meet in this country, he delayed visiting his new domi
nions until the month of October. In April, 1714, there was so
little disposition in favour .of the newly-chosen dynasty, that the
Earl of Oxford entreated George not to bring any of his family
into this country without Queen Anne’s express consent. It
seems strange to read in the correspondence of Madame Eliza
beth Charlotte, Duchesse d’Orleans, her hesitation “ to rejoice
at the accession of our Prince George, for she had no confidence
in the Englishand her fears “ that the inconstancy of the
English will in the end produce some scheme which may be in
jurious to the French monarchy.” She adds: “If the English
were to be trusted, I should say that it is fortunate the Parlia
ments are in favour of George, but themore one reads the history
of English revolutions, the more one is compelled to remark the
eternal hatred which the people of that nation have had towards
their kings, as well as their fickleness.” To-day it is the Eng
�The House of Brunswick.
11
lish who charge the French with fickleness. Thackeray says of
George I.,that “he showed an uncommon prudence and cool
ness of behaviour when he came into his kingdom, exhibiting no
elation ; reasonably doubtful whether he should not be turned
out some day ; looking upon himself only as a lodger, and making
the most of his brief tenure of St James’s and Hampton Court,
plundering, it is true, somewhat, and dividing amongst his Ger
man followers ; but what could be expected of a sovereign who
at home could sell his subjects at so many ducats per head, and
make no scruple in so disposing of them ?” At the accession of
George I. the national debt of this country, exclusive of an
nuities, was about ^36,000,000; after five Brunswicks have left us,
it is _£8oo,ooo,ooo for Great Britain and Ireland, and much more
than £110,000,000 for India. The average annual national ex
penditure under the rule of George I. was ,£5,923,079 : to-day it is
more than £70,000,000, of which more than £20,000,000 have
been added in the last twenty years. During the reign of
George I. land paid very nearly one-fourth the whole of the
taxes, to-day it pays less than one-seventieth part; and yet, while
its proportion of the burden is so much lighter, its exaction from
labour in rent is ten times heavier.
George I. came to England without his wife, the Princess of
Zelle. Years before, he had arrested her and placed her in
close confinement in Ahlden Castle, on account of her intrigue
with Philip, Count Konigsmark, whom some say George I. sus
pected of being the actual father of the Electoral Prince George,
afterwards George II. To use the language of a writer patro
nised by George Prince of Wales, in 1808, “The coldness
between George I. and his son and successor George II. may
be said to have been almost coeval with the existence of the latter.”
Our King, George I., described by Thackeray as a “ cold, selfish
libertine,” had Konigsmark murdered in the palace of Heranhausen ; confined his wife, at twenty-eight years of age, in a dun
geon, where she remained until she was sixty; and when George
Augustus, Electoral Prince of Hanover, tried to get access to his
mother, George Lewis, then Elector of Hanover, arrested Prince
George also, and it is said would have put him to death if the
Emperor of Germany had not protected him as a Prince of the
German Empire. During the reign of George II., Frederick
Prince of Wales, whom his father denounced as “a changeling,”
published an account of how George I. had turned Frederick’s
father out of ■ the palace. These Guelphs have been a loving
family. The Edinburgh Review declares that “ the terms on
which the eldest sons of this family have always lived with their
fathers have been those of distrust, opposition, and hostility.”
Even after George Lewis had ascended the throne of England,
his hatred to George Augustus was so bitter, that there was
some proposition that James, Earl Berkeley-and Lord High
Admiral, should carry off the Prince to America and keep him
there.
Thackeray says : “When George I. made his first visit''to
�12
The House of Brunswick.
Hanover, his son was appointed regent during the Royal ab
sence. But this honour was never again conferred on the
Prince of Wales ; he and his father fell out presently. On the
occasion of the christening of his second son, a Royal row took
place, and the Prince, shaking his fist in the Duke of New
castle's face, called him a rogue, and provoked his august
father. He and his wife were turned out of St. James’s, and
their princely children taken from them, by order of the Royal
head of the family. Father and mother wept piteously at part
ing from their little ones. The young ones sent some cherries,
with their love, to papa and mamma, the parents watered the
fruit with their tears. They had no tears thirty-five years after
wards, when Prince Frederick died, their eldest son, their heir,
their enemy.”
A satirical ballad on the expulsion of Prince George from St.
James’s Palace, which was followed by the death of the newlychristened baby Prince, is droll enough to here repeat :—
The King then took his gray goose quill,
And dipt it o’er in gall ;
And, by Master Vice-Chamberlain,
He sent to him this scrawl:
“ Take hence yourself, and eke your spouse,
Your maidens and your men ;
Your trunks, and all your trumpery,
Except your chil-de-ren.”
*****
The Prince secured with nimble haste
The Artillery Commission ;
And with him trudged full many a maid,
But not one politician.
Up leapt Lepel, and frisked away,
As though she ran on wheels ;
Miss Meadows made a woful face,
Miss Howe took to her heels.
But Bellenden I needs must praise,
Who, as down stairs she jumps,
Sang “ O’er the hills and far away,”
Despising doleful dumps.
Then up the street they took their way,
And knockt up good Lord Grant-ham ;
Higgledy-piggledy they lay,
And all went rantam scantam.
Now sire and son had played their part,
What could befall beside ?
Why the poor babe took this to heart,
Kickt up its heels, and died.
�The House of Brunswick.
13
Mahon, despite all his desire to make out the best for the
Whig revolution and its consequences, occasionally makes some
pregnant admissions : “ The jealousy which George I. enter
tained for his son was no new feeling. It had existed even at
Hanover, and had since been inflamed by an insidious motion
of the Tories that out of the Civil List £100,000 should be
allotted as a separate revenue for the Prince of Wales. This
motion was over-ruled by the Ministerial party, and its rejection
offended the Prince as much as its proposal had the King......
In fact it is remarkable...... that since that family has reigned,
the heirs-apparent have always been on ill terms with the sove
reign. There have been four Princes of Wales since the death
of Anne, and all four have gone into bitter opposition.” “ That
family,” said Lord Carteret one day in full Council, “ always has
quarrelled, and always will quarrel, from generation to genera
tion.”
“ Through the whole of the reign of George I., and through
nearly half of the reign of George II.,” says Lord Macaulay, “a
Tory was regarded as the enemy of the reigning house, and was
excluded from all the favours of the Crown. Though most of
the country gentlemen were Tories, none but Whigs were ap
pointed deans and bishops. In every county, opulent and welldescended Tory squires complained that their names were left
out of the Commission of the Peace, while men of small estate
and of mean birth, who were for toleration and excise, septen
nial parliaments and standing armies, presided at Quarter Ses
sions, and became deputy-lieutenants.”
In attacking the Whigs, my object is certainly not to write in
favour of the Tories, but some such work is needful while so
many persons labour under the delusion that the Whigs have
always been friends to liberty and progress.
Although George I. brought with him no wife to England, he
was accompanied by at least two of his mistresses, and our
peerage roll was enriched by the addition of Madame Kielmansegge as Countess of Darlington, and Mademoiselle Erangard
Melosine de Schulenberg as Duchess of Kendal and Munster,
Baroness of Glastonbury and Countess of Feversham. These
peeresses were received with high favour by the Whig aristo
cracy, although the Tories refused to countenance them, and
“ they were often hooted by the mob as they passed through the
streets.” The Edinburgh Review described them as “ two big
blowsy German women.” Here I have no room to deal fairly
with Charlotte Sophia, Baroness of Brentford and Countess of
Darlington ; her title is extinct, and I can write nothing of any
good or useful act to revive her memory. Lord Chesterfield
says of George I. : “No woman came amiss to him, if she were
only very willing and very fat.” John Heneage Jesse, in his
“ Memoirs of the Court of England”—speaking of the Duchess
of Kendal, the Countess Platen (the co-partner in the murder
of Konigsmark), afterwards Countess of Darlington, and many
others less known to infamy—says that George I. “ had the
�14
The House of Brunswick.
folly and wickedness to encumber himself with a seraglio of
hideous German prostitutes.” The Duchess of Kendal was for
many years the chief mistress of George, and being tall and lean
was caricatured as the Maypole or the Giraffe. She had a
pension of ,£7,500 a year, the profits of the place of Master of
the Horse, and other plunder. The Countess of Darlington’s
figure may be judged from the name of Elephant or Camel
popularly awarded to her. Horace Walpole says of her : “I
remember as a boy being terrified at her enormous figure. The
fierce black eyes, large and rolling, between two lofty-arched
eyebrows, two acres of cheeks spread with crimson, an ocean of
neck that overflowed, and was not distinguished from the lower
part of her body, and no part restrained by stays. No wonder
that a child dreaded such an ogress.” She died 1724. Mahon
says : “ She was unwieldy in person, and rapacious in cha
racter.”
Phillimore declares that “ George I. brought with him from
Hanover mistresses as rapacious, and satellites as ignoble, as
those which drew down such deserved obloquy on Charles II.
Bothman, Bernstoff, Robethon, and two Turks—Mustapha and
Mahomet—meddled more with public affairs, and were to the
full as venal as Chiffin, Pepys, and Smith.” Mahon, who calls
Robethon “ a prying, impertinent, venomous creature,” adds that
<l coming from a poor electorate, a flight of hungry Hanoverians,
like so many famished vultures, fell with keen eyes and bended
talons on the fruitful soil of England.”
One of the earliest acts of the Whig aristocracy, in the reign of
George I., was to pass a measure through Parliament lengthen
ing the existence of that very Parliament to seven years, and
giving to the King the power to continue all subsequent Par
liaments to a like period. The Triennial Parliaments were thus
lengthened by a corrupt majority. For the committal of the
Septennial bill, there was a majority of 72 votes, and it is alleged
by the Westminster Review, “ that about 82 members of the
honourable house had either fingered Walpole’s gold, or pocketed
the bank notes which, by the purest accident, were left under
their plates........In the ten years which preceded the Septennial
Act, the sum expended in Secret Service money was ,£337,960.
In the ten years which followed the passing of the Septennial
Act, the sum expended for Secret Service was ,£1,453,400.”
The same writer says, “ The friends and framers of the Triennial
Bill were for the most part Tories, and its opponents for the most
part Whigs. The framers and friends of the Bill for long Par
liaments were all Whigs, and its enemies all Tories.” When the
measure came before the Lords, we find Baron Bernstoff, on the
King’s behalf, actually canvassing Peers’wives with promises of
places for their relatives in order to induce them to get their
husbands to vote for the Bill. Another of the early infringements
of public liberty by the Whig supporters of George I., was the
passing (1 Geo.. I., c. 5) the Riot Act, which had not existed
from the accession of James I. to the death of Queen Anne. Sir
�The House of Brunswick.
15
John Hinde Cotton, a few years afterwards, described this Act,
which is still the law of England, as “ An Act by which a little
dirty justice of the peace, the meanest and vilest tool a minister
can use, had it in his power to put twenty or thirty of the best
subjects of England to immediate death, without any trial 01form, but that of reading a proclamation’” In order to facilitate
the King’s desire to spend most of his time in Hanover, the
third section of the Act of Settlement was repealed.
Thackeray says : “Delightful as London city was, King George
I. liked to be out of it as much as ever he could, and when there,
passed all his time with his Germans. It was with them as with
Blucher one hundred years afterwards, when the bold old Reiter
looked down from St. Paul’s and sighed out, ‘ Was fur plunder !”
The German women plundered, the German secretaries plun
dered, the German cooks and intendants plundered; even
Mustapha and Mahomet, the German negroes, had a share of
the booty. Take what you can get, was the old monarch’s
maxim.”
There was considerable discontent expressed in the early years
of George’s reign. Hallam says : “ Much of this disaffection
was owing to the cold reserve of George I., ignorant of the lan
guage, alien to the prejudices of his people, and continually
absent in his electoral dominions, to which he seemed to sacri
fice the nation’s interest....... The letters in Coxe’s Memoirs of
Walpole, abundantly show the German nationality, the impolicy
and neglect of his duties, the rapacity and petty selfishness of
George I. The Whigs were much dissatisfied, but the fear of
losing their places made them his slaves.” In order to add the
duchies of Bremen and Verden to Hanover, in 1716, the King,
as Elector, made a treaty with Denmark against Sweden, which
treaty proved the source of those Continental wars, and the
attendant system of subsidies to European powers, which have,
in the main, created our enormous National Debt. Bremen and
Verden being actually purchased for George I. as the Elector of
Hanover, with English money, Great Britain in addition was
pledged by George I. to guarantee Sleswick to Denmark.
Sweden and Denmark quarrelling—and George I. as Elector of
Hanover having, without the consent of the English Parliament,
declared war against Sweden—an English fleet was sent into
the Baltic to take up a quarrel with which we had no concern.
In addition we were involved in a quarrel with Russia, because
that power had interfered to prevent Mecklenburg being added
to George’s Hanoverian estates. The chief mover in this matter
was the notorious Baron Bernstoff, who held some village pro
perty in Mecklenburg. In all these complications, Hanover
gained, England lost. If Hanover found troops, England paid
for them, while the Electorate solely reaped the benefit. Every
thoughtful writer admits that English interests were always
betrayed to satisfy Hanoverian greed.
The King’s fondness for Germany provoked some hostility,
and amongst the various squibs issued, one in 1716, from the
�16
The House of Brunswick.
pen of Samuel Wesley, brother of John Wesley, is not without
interest. It represents a conversation between George and the
Duchess of Kendall :—
As soon as the wind it came fairly about,
That kept the king in and his enemies out,
He determined no longer confinement to bear,
And thus to the Duchess his mind did declare :
“ Quoth he, my dear Kenny, I’ve been tired a long while,
With living obscure in this poor little isle,
And now Spain and Pretenderhave no more mines to spring,
I’m resolved to go home and live like a king.”
The Duchess approves of this, describes and laughs at all the
persons nominated for the Council of Regency, and concludes:—
“ On the whole, I’ll be hanged if all over the realm
There are thirteen such fools to be put to the helm ;
So for this time be easy, nor have jealous thought,
They ha’n’t sense to sell you, nor are worth being bought.”
“’Tis for that (quoth the King, in very bad French),
I chose them for my regents, and you for my wench,
And neither, I’m sure, will my trust e’er betray,
For the devil won’t take you if I turn you away.”
It was this same Duchess of Kendal who, as the King’s
mistress, was publicly accused of having received enormous
sums of money from the South Sea Company for herself and the
King, in order to shield from justice the principal persons con
nected with those terrible South Sea frauds, by which, in the
year 1720, so many families were reduced to misery.
In 1717, Mr. Shippen, a member of the House of Commons,
was committed to the Tower, for saying in his place in the
House, that it was the “ infelicity of his Majesty’s reign that he
is unacquainted with our language and constitution.” Lord
Macaulay tells us how Lord Carteret, afterwards Earl Granville,
rose into favour. The King could speak no English ; Carteret
was the only one of the Ministry who could speak German.
“ All the communication that Walpole had with his master was
in very bad Latin.” The influence Carteret wielded over the
King did not extend to every member of the Royal Family. The
Princess of Wales afterwards described the Lords Carteret and
Bolingbroke as two she had “ long known to be two as worth
less men of parts as any in the country, and who I have not
only been often told are two of the greatest liars and knaves in
any country, but whom my own observation and experience have
found so.”
Under George I. our standing army was nearly doubled by the
Whig Ministry, and this when peace would rather have justified
a reduction than an increase. The payments to Hanoverian
troops commenced under this king, a payment which William
Pitt afterwards earned the enmity of George II. by very sharply
�The House of Brunswick.
IT
denouncing, and which payment was but a step in the system of
continental subsidies which have helped to swell our national
debt to its present enormous dimensions.
In this reign the enclosure of waste lands was practically com
menced, sixteen enclosure Acts being passed, and 17,660 acres
of land enclosed. This example, once furnishe4, was followed
in the next reign with increasing rapidity, 226 enclosure Acts
being passed in the reign of George II., and 318,778 acres of
land enclosed. As Mr. Fawcett states, up to 1845, more than
7,000,000 acres of land, over which the public possessed in
valuable rights, have been gradually absorbed, and individuals
wielding legislative influence have been enriched at the expense
of the public and the poor.
Within six years from his accession, the King was about
.£600,000 in debt, and this sum was the first of a long list of
debts discharged by the nation for these Brunswicks. When
our ministers to-day talk of obligations on the part of the people
to endow each additional member of the Royal Family, the
memory of these shameful extravagances should have some
effect. George I. had a civil list of £700^000 a year; he received
£300,000 from the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, and
.£300,000 from the London Assurance Companies, and had one
million voted to him in 1726 towards payment of his debts.
When the “ South Sea Bill” was promoted in 1720, wholesale
bribery was resorted to. Transfers of stock were proved to have
been made to persons high in office. Two members of the
Whig Ministry, Lord Sunderland and Mr. Aislabie, were so im
plicated that they had to resign their offices, and the last-named,
who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was ignominiously ex
pelled the House of Commons. Royalty itself, or at least the
King’s sultanas, and several of his German household, shared
the spoil. £30,000 were traced to the King’s mistresses, and
a select committee of the House denounced the whole business
as “ a train of the deepest villany and fraud with which hell ever
contrived to ruin a nation.” Near the close of the reign, Lord
Macclesfied, Lord Chancellor and favourite and tool of the King,,
was impeached for extortion and abuse of trust in his office, and
being convicted, was sentenced to pay a fine of £30,000. In
5716, Mademoiselle Schulenberg, then Duchess of Munster,
received £“5,000 as a bribe for procuring the title of Viscount
for Sir Henry St. John. In 1724, the same mistress, bribed by
Lord Bolingbroke, successfully used her influence to pass an act
through Parliament restoring him his forfeited estates. Mr.
Chetwynd, says my Lady Cowper, in order to secure his position
in the Board of Trade, paid to another of George’s mistresses
£500 down, agreed to allow her £200 a year as long as he held
the place, and gave her also the fine brilliant earrings she wore.
In 1724, there appeared in Dublin, the first of the famous
“ Drapier Letters,” written by Jonathan Swift against Wood’s
coinage patent. A patent had been granted to a man named
Wood for coining halfpence in Ireland. This grant was made
C
�18
The House of Brunswick.
under the influence of the Duchess of Kendal, the mistress of
the King, and on the stipulation that she should receive a large
share of the profits. These “ Drapier Letters ” were prosecuted
by the Government, but Swift followed them with others ; the
grand juries refused to find true bills, and ultimately the patent
was cancelled. Wood, or the Duchess, got as compensation a
grant of a pension of ,£3,000 a year for eight years.
George died at Osnabruck, on his journey Hanoverwards, hi
June 1727, having made a will by which he disposed of his
money in some fashion displeasing to his son George II.; and as
the Edinburgh Review tells us, the latter “ evaded the old King’s
directions, and got his money by burning his will.” In this
George II. only followed his royal father’s example. When
Sophia Dorothea died, she left a will bequeathing her property
in a fashion displeasing to George I., who, without scruple,,
destroyed the testament and appropriated the estate. _ George L
had also previously burned the will of his father-in-law, the
Duke of Zell. At this time the destruction of a will was a capital
felony in England.
In concluding this rough sketch of the reign of George I., it
must not be forgotten that his accession meant the triumph of
the Protestant caste in Ireland, and that under his rule much
was done to render permanent the utter hatred manifested by
the Irish people to their English conquerors, who had always
preferred the policy of extermination to that of conciliation.
Things were so sad in Ireland at the end of this reign, that
Dean Swift, in bitter mockery, “ wrote and published his
‘ Modest Proposal ’ for relieving the miseries of the people, by
cooking and eating the children of the poor“ a piece of the
fiercest sarcasm,” says Mitchell, “ steeped in all the concentrated
bitterness of his soul.” Poor Ireland, she had, at any rate,,
nothing to endear her to the memory of George I.
CHAP. III.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE IL
When George I. died there was so little interest or affection
exhibited by his son and successor, that Sir Robert Walpole, on
announcing to George II. that by the demise of his father he
had succeeded to regal honours,, was saluted with a volley of
oaths, and “ Dat is one big lie.” No pretence even was made
of sorrow. George Augustus had hated George Lewis . during
life and at the first council, when the will of the late King was
produced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the new monarch
simply took it up and walked out of the room with the docu
ment, which was never seen again. Thackeray, who pictures
�The House of Brunswick.
19
George II. as a dull, little man, of low tastes,” says that he
“ made away with his father’s will under the astonished nose of
the Archbishop of Canterbury.” A duplicate of this will having
been deposited with the Duke of Brunswick, a large sum of money
was paid to that Prince nominally as a subsidy by the English
Government for the maintenance of troops, but really as a bribe
for surrendering the document. A legacy having been left by
this will to Lady Walsingham, threats were held out in 1733 by
her then husband, Lord Chesterfield, and £20,000 was paid in
compromise.
The eldest son of George II. was Frederick, born in 1706,
and who up to 1728 resided permanently in Hanover. Lord
Hervey tells us that the King hated his son Frederick, and that
the Queen Caroline, his mother, abhorred him. To Lord Her
vey the Queen says “ My dear Lord, I will give it you under
my hand, if you are in any fear of my relapsing, that my dear
first-born is the greatest ass, and the greatest liar, and the
greatest canaille, and the greatest beast in the whole world ; and
that I most heartily wish he were out of it.” This is a tolerably
strong description of the father of George III. from the lips of
his own mother. Along with this description of Frederick by
the Queen, take Thackeray’s character of George II.’s worthy
father of worthy son : “ Here was one who had neither dignity,
learning, morals, nor wit—who tainted a great society by a bad
example ; who in youth, manhood, old age, was gross, low, and
sensuaL”
In 1705, when only Electoral Prince of Hanover, George had
married Caroline, daughter of the Margrave of Anspach, a
woman of more than average ability. Thackeray describes
Caroline in high terms of praise, but Lord Chesterfield says
that “ she valued herself upon her skill in simulation and dis
simulation...... Cunning and perfidy were the means she made
use of in business.” The Prince of Anspach is alleged by the
Whisperer to have raised some difficulties as to the marriage
on account of George I. being disposed to deny the legitimacy
of his son, and it is further pretended that George I. had actually
to make distinct acknowledgment of his son to King William
III. before the arrangements for the Act of Settlement were
consented to by that King. It is quite clear from the diary of
Lady Cowper, that the old King’s feeling towards George II.
was always one of the most bitter hatred.
The influence exercised by Queen Caroline over George II.
was purely political; and Lord Hervey declares that “wherever
the interest of Germany and the honour of the Empire were con
cerned, her thoughts and reasonings were as German and Im
perial as if England had been out of the question.”
A strange story is told of Sir Robert Walpole and Caroline.
Sir Robert, when intriguing for office under George I., with
Townshend, Devonshire, and others, objected to their plans
being communicated to the Prince of Wales, saying, “ The fat
b
his wife, would betray the secret and spoil the project.”
�'20
The Hottie of Brunswick.
This courtly speech being made known by some kind friend to
the Princess Caroline, considerable hostility was naturally ex
hibited. Sir Robert Walpole, who held the doctrine that every
person was purchasable, the only question being one of price,
managed to purchase peace with Caroline when Queen. When
the ministry suspended, “ Walpole not fairly out, Compton not
fairly in,” Sir Robert assured the Queen that he would secure
her an annuity of ,£100,000 in the event of the King’s death, Sir
Spencer Compton, who was then looked to as likely to be in
power, having only offered £60,000. The Queen sent back
word, “ Tell Sir Robert the fat b—h has forgiven him,” and
thenceforth they were political allies until the Queen’s death
in 1737.
The domestic relations of George II. were marvellous. We
pass with little notice Lady Suffolk, lady-in-waiting to the
Queen and mistress to the King, who was sold by her husband
for a pension of ,£12,000 a year, paid by the British taxpayers,
and who was coarsely insulted by both their Majesties. It is
needless to dwell on the confidential communications, in which
« that strutting little sultan George II.,” as Thackeray calls him,
solicited favours from his wife for his mistress, the Countess of
Walmoden ; but, to use the words of the cultured Edinburgh
Review, the Queen’s “actual intercession to secure for the
King the favours of the Duchess of Modena precludes the idea
that these sentiments were as revolting to the royal Philaminte
as they would nowadays be to a scavenger’s daughter. Nor
was the Queen the only lady of the Royal Family who talked
openly on these matters. When Lady Suffolk was waning at
court, the Princess Royal could find nothing better to say than
this : ‘ I wish with all my heart that he (z>., the King) would
take somebody else, that Mamma might be relieved from the
ennui of seeing him for ever in her room.’ ”
Lady Cowper in her diary tells us that George IL, when Prince
of Wales, intrigued with Lady Walpole, not only with the know
ledge of the Princess Caroline, but also with connivance of the
Prime Minister himself. Lord Hervey adds that Caroline used
to sneer at Sir Robert Walpole, asking how the poor man—“ avec
ce gros corps, ces jambes enflees et ce vilcvin ventre ■ could pos
sibly believe that any woman couldlove him for himself. And that
Sir Robert retaliated, when Caroline afterwards complained to
him of the King’s cross temper, by telling her very coolly that “it
was impossible it could be otherwise, since the King had tasted
better things,” and ended by advising her to bring pretty Lady
Tankerville en rapport with the King.
In 1727 an Act was passed, directed against workmen in the
woollen trade, rendering combination for the purpose of raising
wages unlawful. Some years afterwards, this Act was extended
to other trades, and the whole tendency of the septennial Parlia
ment legislation manifests a most unfortunate desire on the part
of the Legislature to coerce and keep in subjection the artisan
classes.
„
�The House of Brunswick.
21
In February 1728, the celebrated “Beggar’s Opera,” by Gay,
was put on the stage at the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre, and
being supposed to contain some satirical reflections on court
corruption, provoked much displeasure on the part of Royalty.
The Duchess of Queensborough, who patronised Gay, being
forbidden to attend court, wrote thus : “The Duchess of Queens
borough is surprised and well pleased that the King has given
her so agreeable a command as forbidding her the court..........
She hopes that, by so unprecedented an order as this, the King
will see as few as she wishes at his court, particularly such as
dare speak or think truth.”
In 1729, £115,000 was voted by Parliament for the payment
of the King’s debts. This vote seems to have been obtained
under false pretences, to benefit the King, whose “ cardinal pas
sion,” says Phillimore, “ was avarice.”
The Craftsman, during the first decade of the reign, fiercely
assailed the Whig ministry for “a wasteful expenditure of money
in foreign subsidies and bribes and in his place in the House
of Commons William Pitt, “the great Commoner,” in the
strongest language attacked the system of foreign bribery by
which home corruption was supplemented.
The rapidly-increasing expenditure needed every day increased
taxation, and a caricature published in 1732 marks the public
feeling. A monster (Excise), in the form of a many-headed
dragon, is drawing the minister (Sir Robert Walpole) in his
coach, and pouring into his lap, in the shape of gold, what it
has eaten up in the forms of mutton, hams, cups, glasses, mugs,
pipes, &c.
“ See this dragon Excise
Has ten thousand eyes,
And five thousand mouths to devour us ;
A sting and sharp claws,
With wide gaping jaws,
And a belly as big as a store-house.”
Beginning with'wines and liquors—
“ Grant these, and the glutton
Will roar out for mutton,
Your beef, bread, and bacon to boot ;
Your goose, pig, and pullet,
He’ll thrust down his gullet,
Whilst the labourer munches a root.”
In 1730, Mr. Sandys introduced a Bill to disable pensioners
from sitting in Parliament. George II. vigorously opposed this
measure, which was defeated. In the King’s private notes to
Lord Townshend, Mr. Sandys’ proposed act is termed a “vil
lainous measure,” which should be “ torn to pieces in every
particular.”
It was in 1732 that the Earl of Aylesford, a Tory peer, de
clared that standing armies in time of peace were “ against the
�22
The House of Brunswick.
very words of the Petition of Rights" and that “ all the con
fusions and disorders which have been brought upon this king
dom for many years have been all brought upon it by means of
standing armies.” In 1733, Earl Strafford affirmed that “a
standing army ” was “ always inconsistent with the liberties of
the peopleand urged that “ where the people have any regard
for their liberties, they ought never to keep up a greater number
of regular forces than are absolutely necessary for the security
of the Government.” Sir John Barnard declared that the army
ought not to be used on political questions. He said : “ In a
free country, if a tumult happens from a just cause of complaint
the people ought to be satisfied ; their grievances ought to be
redressed ; they ought not surely to be immediately knocked on
the head because they may happen to complain in an irregular
way.” Mr. Pulteney urged that a standing army is “ a body of
men distinct from the body of the people ; they are governed by
different laws ; blind obedience and an entire submission to the
orders of their commanding officer is their only principle. The
nations around us are already enslaved by those very means ;
by means of their standing armies they have every one lost
their liberties ; it is indeed impossible that the liberties of the
people can be preserved in a country where a numerous stand
ing army is kept up.”
In 1735, sixteen Scottish peers were elected to sit in the House
of Lords, and in a petition to Parliament it was alleged, that the
whole of this list of sixteen peers was elected by bribery and
corruption. The petition positively asserted “ that the list of
sixteen peers for Scotland had been formed by persons high in
trust under the crown, previous to the election itself. The peers
were solicited to vote for this list without the liberty of making
any alteration, and endeavours were used to engage peers to
vote for this list by promise of pensions and offices, civil and
military, to themselves and their relations, and by actual pro
mise and offers of sums of money. Several had received money,
and releases of debts owing to the crown were granted to those
who voted for this list. To render this transaction more in
famous, a battalion of troops occupied the Abbey Court of Edin
burgh, and continued there during the whole time of the election,
while there was a considerable body lying within a mile of the
city ready to advance on the signal.” This petition, notwith
standing the gravity of its allegations, was quietly suppressed.
Lady Sundon, Woman of the Bedchamber and Mistress of
the Robes to Queen Caroline, received from Lord Pomfret
jewellery of ,£1,400 value, for obtaining him the appointment of
Master of the Horse.
With a Civil List of ,£800,000 a year, George II. was continually in debt, but an obedient Ministry and a corrupt Parliament never hesitated to discharge his Majesty’s obligations out
of the pockets of the unrepresented people. Lord Carteret, m
1733, speaking of a Bill before the House for granting the King
half a million out of the Sinking Fund, said : “ This Fund, my
�The House of Brunswick.
23
Lords, has been clandestinely defrauded of several small sums at
different times, which indeed together amount to a pretty large
sum ; but by this Bill it is to be openly and avowedly plundered
of £500,000 at once.”
On the 27th of April, 1736, Prince Frederick was married to
the Princess Augusta, of Saxe Gotha, whom King George II.
afterwards described as “ cette diablesse Madame la PrincesseP
In August of the same year, a sharp open quarrel took place
between the Prince of Wales and his parents, which, after some
resumptions of pretended friendliness, ended, on September 10,
1737, in the former being ordered by the King to quit St. James’s
Palace, where he was residing. On the 22nd of the preceding
February, Pulteney had moved for an allowance of ,£100,000 a
year to Prince Frederick. George II. refused to consent, on the
ground that the responsibility to provide for the Prince of Wales
rested with himself, and that “ it would be highly indecorous to
interfere between father and son.” On the Prince of Wales
taking up his residence at Norfolk House, “the King issued an
order that no persons who paid their court to the Prince and
Princess should be admitted to his presence.” An official intima
tion of this was given to foreign ambassadors.
On the 20th of November, 1737, Queen Caroline died, never
having spoken to her son since the quarrel. “ She was,” says
Walpole, “implacable in hatred even to her dying moments.
She absolutely refused to pardon, or even to see, her son.” The
death-bed scene is thus spoken of by Thackeray : “ There never
was such a ghastly farce and as sketched by Lord Hervey, it
is a monstrous mixture of religion, disgusting comedy, and bru
tishness : “ We are shocked in the very chamber of death by
the intrusion of egotism, vanity, buffoonery, and inhumanity.
The King is at one moment dissolved in a mawkish tenderness,
at another sunk into brutal apathy. He is at one moment all
tears for the loss of one who united the softness and amiability
of one sex to the courage and firmness of the other ; at another
all fury because the object of his regrets cannot swallow, or
cannot change her posture, or cannot animate the glassy fixed
ness of her eyes ; at one moment he begins an elaborate pane
gyric on her virtues, then breaks off into an enumeration of his
own, by which he implies that her heart has been enthralled,
and her intelligence awed. He then breaks off into a stupid
story about a storm, for which his daughter laughs at him, and
then while he is weeping over his consort’s death-bed, she ad
vises him to marry again ; and we are—what the Queen was
not—startled by the strange reply, ‘ Non, faurai des mattresses^
with the faintly-moaned out rejoinder, ‘Gela riempeche pas?”
So does the Edinburgh Reviewer, following Lord Hervey, paint
the dying scene of the Queen of our second George.
After the death of the Queen, the influence of the King’s mis
tresses became supreme, and Sir R. Walpole, who in losing
Queen Caroline had lost his greatest hold over George, paid
court to Lady Walmoden, in order to maintain his weakened
�24
The House of Brunswick.
influence. In the private letters of the Pelham family, who
succeeded to power soon after Walpole’s fall, we find frequent
mention of the Countess of Yarmouth as a power to be gained,
a person to stand well with. “ I read,” says Thackeray, “ that
Lady Yarmouth (my most religious and gracious king’s favou
rite) sold a bishopric to a clergyman for ,£5,000. (He betted
her ^5,000 that he would not be made a bishop, and he lost, and
paid her.) Was he the only prelate of his time led up by such
hands for consecration ? As I peep into George II.’s St. James’s,
I see crowds of cassocks rustling up the back-stairs of the ladies
of the Court; stealthy clergy slipping purses into their laps ;
that godless old King yawning under his canopy in his Chapel
Royal, as the chaplain before him is discoursing.”
On the 23rd of May, 1738, George William Frederick, son of
Frederick, and afterwards George III., was born.
In 1739, Lady Walmoden, who had up to this year remained
in Hanover, was brought to England and formally installed at
the English Court. In this year we bound ourselves by treaty
to pay 250,000 dollars per annum for three years to the Danish
Government. “ The secret motive of this treaty,” says Mahon,
« as of too many others, was not English, but Hanoverian, and
regarded the possession of a petty castle and lordship called
Steinhorst. This castle had been bought from Holstein by
George II. as Elector of Hanover, but the Danes claiming the
sovereignty, a skirmish ensued.......... The well-timed treaty of
subsidy calmed their resentment, and obtained the cession of
their claim.” Many urged, as in truth it was, that Steinhorst
was bought with British money, and Bolingbroke expressed his
fear “ that we shall throw the small remainder- of our wealth
where we have thrown so much already, into the German Gulf,
which cries Give ! Give 1 and is never satisfied.”
On the 19th of May, 1739, in accordance with the wish of the
King, war was declared with Spain, nominally on the question
of the right of search, but when peace was declared at Aix-laChapelle, this subject was never mentioned. According to Dr.
Colquhoun, this war cost the country £(46,418,680.
George II. was, despite the provisions of the Act of Settle
ment, continually in Hanover. From 1729 to I73I> again in
1735 and 1736, and eight times between 174° an(i I7551745 he wished to go, but was not allowed.
On the 2nd of October, 1741 (the Pelham family having
managed to acquire power by dint, as Lord Macaulay puts it,
of more than suspected treason to . [their leader and colleague),
the Duke of Newcastle, then Prime Minister, wrote his brother,
Henry Pelham, as follows : “ I must freely own to you, that I
think the King’s unjustifiable partiality for Hanover, to which
he makes all other views and considerations subservient, has
manifested itself so much that no man can continue in the active
part of the administration with honour.” The duke goes on to
describe the King’s policy as “ both dishonourable and fatal ; ’
and Henry Pelham, on the 8th of October, writes him back that
�The House of Brunswick.
25
“ a partiality to Hanover is general, is what all men of business
have found great obstructions from, ever since this family have
been upon the throne.” Yet these are amongst the most promi
nent of the public defenders of the House of Brunswick, and a
family which reaped great place and profit from the connection.
Of the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Macaulay says : “ No man
was so unmercifully satirised. But in truth he was himself a
satire ready made. All that the art of the satirist does for other
men, nature had done for him. Whatever was absurd about
him stood out with grotesque prominence from the rest of the
character. He was a living, moving, talking, caricature. His
gait was a shuffling trot, his utterance a rapid stutter ; he was
always in a hurry; he was never in time; he abounded in fulsome
caresses and in hysterical tears. His oratory resembled that of
Justice Shallow. It was nonsense, effervescent with animal
spirits and impertinence. Of his ignorance many anecdotes
remain, some well authenticated, some probably invented at
coffee-houses, but all exquisitely characteristic. ‘ Oh! yes, yes,
to be sure ! Annapolis must be defended ; troops must be sent
to Annapolis. Pray where is Annapolis ?’ ‘ Cape Breton an
island ! Wonderful ! show it me in the map. So it is, sure
enough. My dear sir, you always bring us good news. I must
go and tell the King that Cape Breton is an island.’ And this
man was, during near thirty years, Secretary of State, and during
near ten years First Lord of the Treasury ! His large fortune,
his strong hereditary connection, his great Parliamentary interest,
will not alone explain this extraordinary fact. His success is a
signal instance of what may be effected by a man who devotes his
whole heart and soul without reserve to one object. He was eaten
up by ambition. His love of influence and authority resembled
the avarice of the old usurer in the ‘ Fortunes of Nigel.’ It was
so intense a passion that it supplied the place of talents, that it
inspired even fatuity with cunning. ‘ Have no money dealings
with my father,’ says Martha to Lord Glenvarloch, 1 for, dotard
as he is, he will make an ass of you.’ It was as dangerous to
have any political connection with Newcastle as to buy and sell
with old Trapbois. He was greedy after power with a greedi
ness all his own. He was jealous of all colleagues, and even of
his own brother. Under the disguise of levity, he was false
beyond all example of political falsehood. All the able men of
his time ridiculed him as a dunce, a driveller, a child who never
knew his own mind for an hour together ; and he over-reached
them all round.”
In 1742, under the opposition of Pulteney, the Tories called
upon Paxton, the Solicitor to the Treasury, and Scrope, the
Secretary to the Treasury, to account for the specific sum of
^1,147,211, which it was proved they had received from the
minister. No account was ever furnished. George Vaughan, a
confidant of Sir Robert Walpole, was examined before the
Commons as to a practice charged upon that minister, of oblig
ing the possessor of a place or office to pay a certain sum out
D
�26
The House of Brunswick.
of the profits of it to some person or persons recommended by
the minister. Vaughan, who does not appear to have ventured
any direct denial, managed to avoid giving a categorical reply,
and to get excused from answering on the ground that he might
criminate himself. Agitation was commenced for the revival of
Triennial Parliaments, for the renewal of the clause of the Act
of Settlement, by which pensioners and placemen were excluded
from the House of Commons, and for the abolition of standing
armies in time of peace. The Whigs, however, successfully
crushed out the whole of this agitation. Strong language was
heard in the House of Commons, where Sir James Dashwood
said that “ it was no wonder that the people were then unwilling
to support the Government, when a weak, narrow-minded prince
occupied the throne.”
A very amusing squib appeared in 1742, when Sir Robert
Walpole’s power was giving way, partly under the bold attacks
of the Tories, led by Cotton and Shippen ; partly before the
malcontent Whigs under the guidance of Carteret and Pulteney ;
partly before the rising power of the young England party led
by William Pitt ; and somewhat from the jealousy, if not
treachery, of his colleague the Duke of Newcastle. The squib
pictures the King’s embarrassment and anger at being forced to
dismiss Walpole, and to Carteret whom he has charged to form
a ministry :—
“ Quoth the King : My good lord, perhaps you’ve been told
That I used to abuse you a little of old,
But now bring whom you will, and eke turn away,
Let but me and my money at Walmoden stay.”
Lord Carteret explaining to the King whopi he shall keep of
the old ministry, includes the Duke of Newcastle :—“Though Newcastle’s false, as he’s silly I know,
By betraying old Robin to me long ago,
As well as all those who employed him before,
Yet I leave him in place but I leave him no power.
“ For granting his heart is as black as his hat,
With no more truth in this than there’s sense, beneath that,
Yet, as he’s a coward, he’ll shake when I frown ;
You call’d him a rascal, I’ll use him like one.
“ For your foreign affairs, howe’er they turn out,
At least I’ll take care you shall make a great rout;
Then cock your great hat, strut, bounce, and look bluff,
For though kick’d and cuff’d here, you shall there kick and cuff.
“ That Walpole did nothing they all used to say,
So I’ll do enough, but I’ll make the dogs pay ;
Great fleets I’ll provide, and great armies engage,
Whate’er debts we make, or whate’er wars we wage !
�The House of Brunswick.
With cordials like these the monarch’s new guest
Reviv’d his sunk spirits, and gladden’d his breast;
Till in rapture he cried, ‘ My dear Lord, you shall do
Whatever you will—give me troops to review.’ ”
In t743? King George II. actually tried to engage this country
by a private agreement, to pay .£300,000 a year to the Queen of
Hungary, ‘ as long as war should continue, or the necessity of
her affairs should require.” The King, being in Hanover, sent
over the treaty to England, with a warrant directing the Lords
Justices to “ratify and confirm it,” which, however, they refused
to do. On hearing that the Lord Chancellor refused to sanc
tion the arrangement, King George II. threatened, through Earl
Granville, to affix the Great Seal with his own hand. Ultimately
the £300,000 per annum was agreed to be paid so long as the
war lasted, but this sum was in more than one instance ex
ceeded.
Although George II. had induced the country to vote such
large sums to Maria Therese, the Empress-Queen, he nevertheless abandoned her in a most cowardly manner when he
thought his Hanoverian dominions in danger, and actually
treated with France without the knowledge or consent of his
ministry. A rhyming squib, in which the King is termed the
Balancing Captain,” from which we present the following ex
tracts, will serve to show the feeling widely manifested in Eng
land at that time
“ I’ll tell you a story as strange as ’tis new,
Which all who’re concern’d will allow to be true,
Of a Balancing Captain, well known hereabouts/
Returned home (God save him) a mere king of clouts.
“ This Captain he takes in a gold ballasted ship,
Each summer to terra damnosa a trip,
For which he begs, borrows, scrapes all he can get,
And runs his poor owners most vilely in debt.
“ The last time he set out for this blessed place,
He met them, and told them a most piteous case,
Of a sister of his, who, though bred up at court
Was ready to perish for want of support.
’
This Hung'ry sister he then did pretend,
Would be to his owners a notable friend,
If they would at that critical juncture supply her •
They did—but, alas ! all the fat’s in the fire !”
The ballad then suggests that the King, having got all the
money possible, made a peace with the enemies of the Queen of
Hungary, described in the ballad as the sister
“ He then turns his sister adrift, and declares
most mortal foes were her father’s right heirs :
‘ o71h7dS !’
such a steP was ne’er taken!’
Oh, oh ! says Moll Bluff, I have saved my own bacon.
�28
The House of Brunswick.
‘ Let France damn the Germans, and undamn the Dutch,
And Spain on Old England pish ever so much ;
Let Russia bang Sweden, or Sweden bang that,
I care not, by Robert, one kick of my hat /
‘ Or should my chous’d owners begin to look sour,
I’ll trust to mate Bob to exert his old power,
Regit animas dictis, or numis with ease,
So, spite of your growling, I’ll act as I please !’ ”
The British Nation, described as the owners, are cautioned to
look into the accounts of their Captain, who is bringing them to
insolvency :—
“ This secret, however, must out on the day
When he meets his poor owners to ask for his pay ;
Arid I fear, when they come to adjust the account,
A zero for balance will prove their amount.”
The firial result of all these subsidy votes was to increase our
national debt, up to the signing of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
to ^76,000,000 ; while the seven years’ war, which Came later,
brought the debt to
133,000,000, not including in this the
capitalised value of the terminable annuities.
On November 22nd, 1743, a caricature was published, which
had a wide sale, and which represented the King as a fat
Hanoverian white horse riding to death a nearly starved British
lion.
In 1744, ^200,000 was voted, which King George and Lord
Carteret, who was called by William Pitt his “ Hanoverian troop
minister,” had agreed to give the King of Sardinia. ^40,000
was also voted for a payment made by the King to the Duke of
Arenberg. This payment was denounced by Mr. Lyttelton as a
dangerous misapplication of public money.
The votes for foreign subsidies alone, in 1744, were ,£691,426,
while the Hanoverian soldiers cost us .£393,773- The King
actually tried in addition in the month of August to get a further
subsidy for his friend the Elector of Saxony, and another for the
King of Poland, and this when Englishmen and Irishmen were
lacking bread. Nor was even a pretence made in some instances
of earning the money, f 150,000 was paid this year to keep
Prince Charles in Alsace, and the moment Austria got the
money, Prince Charles was withdrawn, and Henry Pelham,
writing to the Duke of Newcastle, says, “The same will be the
case with every sum of money we advance. The allies will take
it, and then act as suits their convenience and security.” In the
four years from 1744 to 1747 both included, we paid ,£4,342,683
for foreign troops and subsidies, not including the Dutch and
Hessians, whom we hired to put down the rebellion of 1745- In
the case of the whole of this war, in which we subsidised all our
allies except the Dutch, it is clear that the direct and sole blame
rests upon the King, who cared nothing for English interests in
�The House of Brunswick.
29
the matter. When firmly remonstrated with by Lord Chancellor
Hardwicke, his reply was what the Duke of Newcastle describes,
as “almost sullen silence.”
For the rebellion of 1745—which came so. near being success
ful, and which would have thoroughly succeeded had the Pre
tender’s son possessed any sort of ability as a leader—there is,
little room to spare here. The attempt to suppress it in its early
stages is thus described in a Jacobite ballad ;—
“ Horse, foot, and dragoons, from lost Flanders they call,
With Hessians and Danes, and the devil and all;
And hunters and rangers led by Oglethorpe ;
And the Church, at the bum of the Bishop of York.
And pray, who so fit to lead forth this parade,
As the babe of Tangier, my old grandmother Wade ?
Whose cunning’s so quick, but whose motion’s so slow,
That the rebels marched on, while he stuck in the snow.”'
The hideously disgusting cruelties and horrible excesses com
mitted by the infamous Duke of Cumberland, and the Hessians
and Hanoverians under his command, in suppressing the rebel
lion after the battle of Culloden, are, alas 1 too well known.
Duncan Forbes, Lord President of the Court of Session, and a
warm supporter of the Brunswicks, remonstrating with the Duke
as to the latter’s disregard of the laws of the country, his Royal
Highness of Cumberland replied with an oath : “ The laws of
my country, my lord ; I’ll make a brigade give laws.” Scotland
has many reasons for loving the House of Brunswick. Lord
Waldegrave, who strove hard to whitewash the Duke of Cumber
land, says that “ Frederick Prince of Wales gave too much
credit to the most malignant and groundless accusations, by
showing favour to every man who aspersed his brother’s cha
racter.”
In 1747, £456,733 was voted by Parliament for the payment
of the King’s debts.
In 1748 considerable difficulty arose in consequence of the.
King’s intrigues to obtain, at the expense of England, the
Bishopric of Osnaburg as a princely establishment for his.
favourite son the Duke of Cumberland, that pious prince, much
esteemed in Scotland as “ the butcher.” The most open hosti
lity subsisted between the Duke of Cumberland and Prince
Frederick, and pamphleteering attacks on the former, for his
brutality and excesses, were supposed to be encouraged by the
Leicester House party.
Amongst the curious scandals of 1749, it is stated that the
King—being present at a masked ball, at which Elizabeth Chudleigh, afterwards Duchess of Kingston, figured as “ La Belle
Sauvage” in a close fitting dress of flesh-coloured silk—re
quested permission to place his hand on Miss Chudleigh’s breast.
The latter replied that she would put the King’s hand on a still
softer place, and immediately raised it to his own royal forehead.
�30
The House of Brunswick.
On the 20th March, 1751, Frederick Prince of Wales died.
The King, who received the news while playing cards with his
mistress, Lady Yarmouth, and who had not spoken to his son for
years, merely said, “Freddy is dead.” On this subject Thackeray
preserves for us the following epitaph :—
“ Here lies Fred,
o>
Who was alive, and is dead.
Had it been his father,
I had much rather.
Had it been his brother,
Still better than another.
Had it been his sister,
N o one would have missed her.
Had it been the whole generation,
Still better for the nation.
■
But since ’tis only Fred,
Who was alive, and is dead,
There’s no more to be said.”
In 1755, there was the second war, estimated to have cost
;£i 11,271,996. In this George II. pursued exactly the opposite
course of policy to*that taken by him in the previous one. The
war during the years fallowing 1739, was f°r the humiliation of
the King of Prussia ; the policy in the last war was to prevent
his humiliation. Mr. Baxter estimates the debt (exclusive of
annuities) at ^133,000,000 ; Dr. Colquhoun, adding the value of
the annuities, makes it ^146,682,843 at the conclusion of this
war.
Towards the close of the reign of George II., who died on
October 25th, 1760, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumber
land, by an exhibition of great strategy, combined with much
discretionary valour, succeeded in making peace on terms which
ensured the repose of himself and his Hanoverian forces during
the remainder of the war. At home his Royal Higness was
much attacked, some venturing to describe his personal conduct
as cowardly and his generalship as contemptible. It is a suffi
cient refutation of such a calumny to say that the Duke of Cum
berland was as brave a soldier and as able a general as our
present Commander-in-Chief, his Royal Highness the Duke of
Cambridge.
Lord Waldegrave, who wrote in favour of George II., admits
that the King “ is accused by his ministers of being hasty and
passionate when any measure is proposed which he does not
approve of.” That “ too great attention to money seems to be
his capital failing.” And that “ his political courage seems
somewhat problematical.” Phillimore says : “ In public life he
was altogether indifferent to the welfare of England, except as
it affected his Electorate’s or his own. Always purchasing con
cubines, he was always governed by his wife. In private life he
was a gross lover, an unreasonable master, a coarsely unfaithful
husband, an unnatural parent, and a selfish man.”
�The House of Brunswick.
31
N o more fitting conclusion can be found to this chapter than
the following pregnant words from the pen of Lord Macaulay :
—“At the close of the reign of George II. the feeling of aver
sion with which the House of Brunswick had long been regarded
by half the nation had died away ; but no feeling of affection
to that house had yet sprung up. There was little, indeed, in
the old King’s character to inspire esteem or tenderness. He
was not our countryman. He never set foot on our soil till he
was more than thirty years old. His speech bewrayed his
foreign origin and breeding. His love for his native land, though
the most amiable part of his character, was not likely to endear
him to his British subjects. He was never so happy as when
he could exchange St. James’s for Heranhausen. Year after
year our fleets were employed to convoy him to the Continent,
and the interests of his kingdom were as nothing to him when
compared with the interests of his Electorate. As to the rest,
he had neither the qualities which make dulness respectable, nor
the qualities which make libertinism attractive. He had been
a bad son and a worse father, an unfaithful husband and an un
graceful lover. Not one magnanimous or humane action is re
corded of him ; but many instances of meanness, and of a
harshness which, but for the strong constitutional restraints
under which he was placed, might have made the misery of his
people.”
CHAP. IV.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
When George II. died, his grandson and successor, George
III., was twenty-two years of age. The Civil List of the new
King was fixed at £800,000 a year, “ a provision,” says Phillimore, in his “ History of England,” “ that soon became inade
quate to the clandestine purposes of George III., and for the
purchase of the mercenary dependents, on the support of whom
his unconstitutional proceedings obliged him to depend.” The
Civil List of George III. was not, however, - really so large as
that of her present Majesty. The Civil List disbursements in
cluded such items as Secret Service, now charged separately ;
pensions and annuities, now charged separately ; diplomatic
salaries, now forming distinct items ; fees and salaries of min
isters and judges, now forming no part of the charge against
the Civil List. So that though ,£924,041 was the Civil List of
George III. four years after he ascended the throne, in truth to
day the Royal Family alone get much more than all the great
offices and machinery of State then cost. The Royal Family at
the present time get from the country, avowedly and secretly,
about one million sterling a year.
�32
The House of Brunswick.
“At the accession of George III.,” says Thackeray, “the
Patricians were yet at the height of their good fortune. Society
recognised their superiority, which they themselves pretty
calmly took for granted. They inherited not only titles and
estates, and seats in the House of Peers, but seats in the House
of Commons. There were a multitude of Government places,
and not merely these, but. bribes of actual ^500 notes, which
members of the House took not much shame in assuming. Fox
went into Parliament at twenty, Pitt was just of age, his father
not much older. It was the good time for Patricians.”
A change of political parties was imminent; Whig rule had
lasted seventy years, and England had become tolerably dis
gusted with the consequences.
“ Now that George II. was dead,” says Macaulay, “ a courtier
might venture to ask why England was to become a party in a
dispute between two German powers. What was it to her
whether the House of Hapsburg or the House of Brandenburg
ruled in Silesia ? Why were the best English regiments fight
ing on the Maine ? Why were the Prussian battalions paid with
English gold ? The great minister seemed to think it beneath
him to calculate the price of victory. As long as the Tower
guns were fired, as the streets were illuminated, as French ban
ners were carried in triumph through London, it was to him
matter of indifference to what extent the public burdens were
augmented. Nay, he seemed to glory in the magnitude of those
sacrifices which the people, fascinated by his eloquence and
success, had too readily made, and would long and bitterly
regret. There was no check on waste or embezzlement. Our
commissaries returned from the camp of Prince Ferdinand, to
buy boroughs, to rear palaces, to rival the magnificence of the
old aristocracy of the realm. Already had we borrowed, in four
years of war, more than the most skilful and economical govern
ment would pay in forty years of peace.”
The Church allied itself with the Tories, who assumed the
reins of government, and thenceforth totally forgot the views of
liberty they had maintained when in opposition. The policy of
all their succeeding legislation was that of mischievous retro
gression ; they sought to excel the old Whigs in their efforts to
consolidate the aristocracy at the expense of the people.
“This reactionary movement,” says Buckle, “was greatly
aided by the personal character of George III.; for he, being
despotic as well as superstitious, was equally anxious to extend
the prerogative, and strengthen the Church. Every liberal sen
timent, everything approaching to reform, nay, even the mere
mention of inquiry, was an abomination in the eyes of that nar
row and ignorant Prince. Without knowledge, without taste,
without even a glimpse of one of the sciences, or a feeling for
one of the fine arts, education had done nothing to enlarge a
mind which nature had more than usually contracted. Totally
ignorant of the history and resources of foreign countries, and
barely knowing their geographical position, his information was
�The House of Brunswick.
33
scarcely more extensive respecting the people over whom he
was called to rule. In that immense mass of evidence now
extant, and which consists of every description of private cor
respondence, records of private conversation, and of public
acts, there is not to be found the slightest proof that he knew
any one of those numerous things which the governor of a
country ought to know ; or, indeed, that he was acquainted with
a single duty of his position, except the mere mechanical routine
of ordinary business, which might have been effected by the
lowest clerk in the meanest office in his kingdom.
“ He gathered round his throne that great party, who, clinging
to the tradition of the past, have always made it their boast to
check the progress of their age. During the sixty years of his
reign, he, with the sole exception of Pitt, never willingly admitted
to his councils a single man of great ability : not one whose
name is associated with any measure of value, either in domestic
or foreign policy. Even Pitt only maintained his position in the
state by forgetting the lessons of his illustrious father, and aban
doning those liberal principles in which he had been educated,
and with which he entered public life. Because George III.
hated the idea of reform, Pitt not only relinquished what he had
before declared to be absolutely necessary, but did not hesitate
to persecute to death the party with whom he had once associated
in order to obtain it. Because George III. looked upon slavery
as one of those good old customs which the wisdom of his
ancestors had consecrated, Pitt did not dare to use his power
for procuring its abolition, but left to his successors the glory of
destroying that infamous trade, on the preservation of which his
royal master had set his heart. Because George III. detested
the French, of whom he knew as much as he knew of the in
habitants of Kamschatka or Thibet, Pitt, contrary to his own
judgment, engaged in a war with France, by which England was
seriously imperilled, and the English people burdened with a
debt that their remotest posterity will be unable to pay. But,
notwithstanding all this, when Pitt, only a few years before his
death, showed a determination to concede to the Irish a small
share of their undoubted rights, the King dismissed him from
office, and the King’s friends, as they were called, expressed their
indignation at the presumption of a minister who could oppose
the wishes of so benign and gracious a master. And when, un
happily for his own fame, this great man determined to return
to power, he could only recover office by conceding that very
point for which he had relinquished it; thus setting the mischiev
ous example of the minister of a free country sacrificing his own
judgment to the personal prejudices of the reigning sovereign.
As it was hardly possible to find other ministers who to equal
abilities would add equal subservience, it is not surprising that
the highest offices were constantly filled with men of notorious
incapacity. Indeed, the King seemed to have an instinctive
antipathy to everything great and noble. During the reign of
George II. the elder Pitt had won for himself a reputation which
�34
The House of Brunswick.
covered the world, and had carried to an unprecedented height
the glories of the English name. He, however, as the avowed
friend of popular rights, strenuously opposed the despotic prin
ciples of the Court; and for this reason he was hated by George
III. with a hatred that seemed barely compatible with a sane
mind. Fox was one of the greatest statesmen of the eighteenth
century, and was better acquainted than any other with the
character and resources of those foreign nations with which our
interests were intimately connected. To this rare and impor
tant knowledge he added a sweetness and amenity of temper
which extorted the praises even of his political opponents. But
he, too, was the steady supporter of civil and religious liberty ;
and he, too, was so detested by George III., that the King, with
his own hand, struck his name out of the list of Privy Council
lors, and declared that he would rather abdicate the throne than
admit him to a share in the Government.
“While this unfavourable change was taking place in the
sovereign and ministers of the country, a change equally un
favourable was being effected in the second branch of the impe
rial legislature. Until the reign of George III. the House of
Lords was decidedly superior to the House of Commons in the
liberality and general accomplishments of its members. It is
true that in both Houses there prevailed a spirit which must be
called narrow and superstitious if tried by the larger standard
of the present age.
“ The superiority of the Upper House over the Lower was, on
the whole, steadily maintained during the reign of George II.,
the ministers not being anxious to strengthen the High Church
party in the Lords, and the King himself so rarely suggesting
fresh creations as to cause a belief that he particularly disliked
increasing their numbers. It was reserved for George III., by
an unsparing use of his prerogative, entirely to change the cha
racter of the Upper House, and thus lay the foundation for that
disrepute into which, since then, the peers have been constantly
. falling. The creations he made were numerous beyond all pre
cedent, their object evidently being to neutralise the liberal spirit
hitherto prevailing, and thus turn the House of Lords into an
engine for resisting the popular wishes, and stopping the progress
of reform. How completely this plan succeeded is well known to
the readers of our history ; indeed, it was sure to be successful
considering the character of the men who were promoted. They
consisted almost entirely of two classes : of country gentlemen,
remarkable for nothing but their wealth, and the number of
votes their wealth enabled them to control; and of mere lawyers,
who had risen to judicial appointments partly from their pro
fessional learning, but chiefly from the zeal with which they
repressed the popular liberties, and favoured the royal prero
gative.
“ That this is no exaggerated description may be ascertained
by anyone who will consult the lists of the new peers made by
George III.
�The House of Brunswick.
35
“ Here and there we find an eminent man, whose public ser
vices were so notorious that it was impossible to avoid reward
ing them ; but, putting aside those who were in a manner forced
upon the sovereign, it would be idle to deny that the remainder,
and of course the overwhelming majority, were marked by a
narrowness and illiberality of sentiment which, more than any
thing else, brought the whole order into contempt. No great
thinkers, no great writers, no great orators, no great statesmen,
none of the true nobility of the land, were to be found among
the spurious nobles created by George III.”
In the early part of his reign, George III. (whom even the
courtly Alison pictures as having “ little education and no great
acquired information”) was very much under the influence of
his mother, who had, previously to his being King, often spoken
of her son with contempt. The Princess of Wales, in turn, was
almost entirely guided by Lord Bute, represented by scandal,
says Macaulay, as “ her favoured lover.” “ Of this attachment,”
says Dr. Doran, “ the Prince of Wales himself is said to have
had full knowledge, and did not object to Lord Bute taking
solitary walks, with the Princess, while he could do the same
with Lady Middlesex.” The most infamous stories were cir
culated in the Whisperer, and other journals of the time as to
the nature of the association between the Scotch Peer and the
King’s mother, and its results. Phillimore regards the Princess
of Wales as “before and after her husband’s death the mis
tress of Lord Bute.” The Princess Dowager seems to have
been a hard woman. Walpole tells us how, when the PrincessDowager reproved one of her maids of honour for irregular
habits, the latter replied, “Madame, chacun a son But." “ See
ing,” says Thackeray, “the young Duke of Gloucester silent
and unhappy once, she sharply asked him the cause of his
silence. ‘ I am thinking,’ said the poor child. ‘ Thinking, sir !
and of what ?’ 11 am thinking if ever I have a son, I will not
make him so unhappy as you make me.’ ”
John Stuart, Earl of Bute, shared with William Pitt and John
Wilkes the bulk of popular attention during the first ten years
of the King’s reign. Bute had risen rapidly to favour, having
attracted the attention of the Princess-Dowager at some private
theatricals, and he became by her influence Groom of the Stole.
His poverty and ambition made him grasp at power, both against
the great Commoner and the Pelham faction ; and a lady ob
server described the great question of the day in 1760, as being
whether the King would burn in his chamber Scotch coal, New
castle coal, or Pitt coal. Macaulay, who seems to have followed
Lord Waldegrave’s “Memoirs,” says of Bute: “A handsome
leg was among his chief qualifications for the stage.......... His
understanding was narrow, his manners cold and haughty.” His
qualifications for the part of a statesman were best described by
Prince Frederick, who often indulged in the unprincely luxury
of sneering at his dependents. “ Bute,” said his Royal High
ness, “ you are the very man to be envoy at some small proud
�36
The House of Brunswick.
German Court, where there is nothing to do.” Phillimore
speaks of Lord Bute as “ a minion raised by Court favour to
a post where his ignorance, mean understanding, and disregard
of English honour, became national calamities.”
The King’s speech on his accession is said to have been
drawn up by Bute, who did not then belong to the Council,
but the terms being vehemently objected to by Pitt, it was ac
tually altered after delivery, and before it found its way to the
printer.
Whatever were the relations between Lord Bute and the
Princess-Dowager, it is quite certain that on more than one
occasion George III. condescended not only to prevaricate, but
to lie as to the influence exercised by Lord Bute. It is certain,
from the “ Memoirs” of Earl Waldegrave, and other trustworthy
sources, that the Scotch Earl, after being hissed out of office by
the people, was still secretly consulted by the King, who, like a
truly Royal Brunswick, did not hesitate to use falsehood on the
subject even to his own ministers. Phillimore, in remarkably
strong language, describes George III. as “an ignorant, dis
honest, obstinate, narrow-minded boy, at that very moment the
tool of an adulteress and her paramour.” The Duke of Bed
ford has put upon record, in his correspondence, not only his
conviction that the King behaved unfaithfully to his ministers,
but asserts that he told him so to his face.
In 1759, George was married to Hannah Lightfoot, a Quakeress,
in Curzon Street Chapel, May Fair, in the presence of his brother,
Edward, Duke of York. Great doubt has, however, been cast
on the legality of this marriage, as it would, if in all respects
valid, have rendered null as a bigamous contract the subsequent
marriage entered into by the King. Dr. Doran says that the
Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV., when needing money
in later years, used this Lightfoot marriage as a threat against
his royal parents—that is, that he threatened to expose his
mother’s shame and his own illegitimacy if the Queen would not
use her influence with Pitt. Glorious family, these Brunswicks!
Walpole affinns that early in his reign George III. admitted to
his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, “ that it had not been
common in their family to live well together.”
On the 18th of September, 1761, George was married to the
Princess Charlotte Sophia, of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, Hannah
Lightfoot being still alive. Of the new Queen Phillimore says :
“ If to watch over the education of her children and to promote
their happiness be any part of a woman’s duty, she has little
claim to the praises that have been so lavishly bestowed on her
as a model of domestic virtue. Her religion was displayed in
the scrupulous observance of external forms. Repulsive in her
aspect, grovelling in her instincts, sordid in her habits ; steeped
from the cradle in the stupid pride which was the atmosphere
of her stolid and most insignificant race ; inexorably severe to
those who yielded to temptation from which she was protected,
not more by her situation and the vigilance of those around her,
�The House of Brunswick.
37
than by the extreme homeliness of her person ; bigoted, avari
cious, unamiable to brutality, she added dulness and gloom even
to the English court.”
In 1761, the Duke of Bedford was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ;
that unfortunate country, for centuries governed by men who
tried to exterminate its natives, and which was used under the
first three reigns of the House of Brunswick as a sponge out of
which, regardless of much bloodshed and more misery, gold
could be squeezed for the dependents and relatives of aristocrats
in office. His reign of office in Ireland was brief. Walpole
says that “ the ill-humour of the country determined the Duke
of Bedford to quit the Government, after having amply gratified
his family and dependents with pensions.” It was this Duke of
Bedford who consented that the Princess of Hesse should have
a pension of .£6,000 a year out of the Irish revenues, and who
gave to his own relative, the Lady Betty Waldegrave, .£800 a
year from the same source. Shortly after this, Prince Charles of
Strelitz, the Queen’s brother, received ,£30,000 towards the pay
ment of the debts he owed in Germany. This ,£30,000 was
nominally given by the King out of the Civil List, but was really
paid by the nation when discharging the Civil List debts which
it increased. On the motion of Lord Barrington, ,£400,000
subsidy was granted this year to the Landgrave of Hesse, under
a secret treaty made by George II., without the knowledge or
consent of Parliament, and ,£300,000 was also voted to the
Chancery of Hanover for forage for Hanoverian, Prussian, and
Hessian Cavalry.
On August 12th, 1762, George Prince of Wales was born ; and
in the same year, with the direct connivance of George III., the
peace of Paris was made; a peace as disgraceful to England,
under the circumstances, as can be possibly imagined. Lord
Bute, who was roundly charged with receiving money from
France for his services, and this with the knowledge of the
mother of George III., most certainly communicated to the
French minister “ the most secret councils of the English Cabinet.”
This was done with the distinct concurrence of George III., who
was himself bribed by the immediate evacuation of his Hanove
rian dominions. In the debate in the Lords on the preliminaries
of peace, Horace Walpole tells us that “the Duke of Grafton,
with great weight and greater warmth, attacked them severely’
and looking full on Lord Bute, imputed to him corruption and
worse arts.” Count Virri, the disreputable agent employed in
this matter by the King and Lord Bute, was rewarded under the
false name of George Charles with a pension of f 1,000 a year
out of the Irish revenues. Phillimore may well declare that Lord
Bute was “ a minion, raised by court favour to a post where his
ignorance, mean understanding, and disregard of English honour,
became national calamities.” To carry the approval of this peace
of Paris through the Commons, Fox, afterwards Lord Holland,
was purchased with a most lucrative appointment, although only
shortly before he had published a print of George, with the
�38
The House of Brunswick.
following lines, referring to the Princess Dowager and Lord
Bute, written under the likeness :—
“ Son of a-------I could say more.”
To gain a majority in the House of Commons, Walpole tells
us “ that a shop was publicly opened at the pay office, whither
the members flocked and received the wages of their venality in
bank bills even to so low a sum as >£200, for their votes on the
treaty. .£25,000 was thus issued in one morning.” Lord Ches
terfield speaks of the large sums disbursed by the King “ for the
hire of Parliament men.”
As an illustration of the unblushing corruption of the age, the
following letter from Lord Saye and Sele to Mr. Grenville, then
Prime Minister of England, tells its own terrible tale :—
“ November 26th, 1763.
“ Honoured Sir,—I am very much obliged to you for that
freedom of converse you this morning indulged me in, which I
prize more than the lucrative advantage I then received. To show
the sincerity of my words (pardon, Sir, the over-niceness of my
disposition), I return enclosed the bill for ,£300 you favoured me
with, as good manners would not permit my refusal of it when
tendered by you.
“ Your most obliged and obedient servant,
“Saye and Sele.
“ As a free horse needs no spur, so I stand in need of no in
ducement or douceur to lend my small assistance to the King or
his friends in the present Administration.”
That this was part of the general practice of the Government
under George III., may be seen by the following extract from
an infamous letter- written about fifteen years later by the LordLieutenant of Ireland : “ No man can see the inconvenience of
increasing the Peers more forcibly than myself, but the recom
mendation of many of those persons submitted to his Majesty
for that honour, arose from engagements taken up at the press
of the moment to rescue questions upon which the English Go
vernment were very particularly anxious. My sentiments cannot
but be the same with reference to the Privy Council and pen
sions, and I had not contracted any absolute engagements of
recommendations either to peerage or pension, till difficulties
arose which necessarily occasioned so much anxiety in his
Majesty’s Cabinet, that I must have been culpable in neglecting
any possible means to secure a majority in the House of Com
mons.”
A good story is told of the great Commoner Pitt’s repartee
to Fox (afterwards Lord Holland), in one of the debates of this
period. “ Pitt,” says the London Chronicle, “ in the heat of his
declamation, proceeded so far as to attack the personal deformity
of Fox ; and represented his gloomy and lowering countenance,
�The House of Brunswick.
39
with the penthouse of his eye-brows, as Churchill phrases it, as
a true introduction of his dark and double mind. Mr. Fox was
nettled at this personal reflection, and the more so, perhaps, that
it was as just as it was cutting. He therefore got up, and after
inveighing bitterly against the indecency of his antagonist, in
descending to remark on his bodily defects, observed that his
'figure was such as God Almighty had made it, and he could not
look otherwise ; and then, in a tone between the plaintive and
indignant, cried out, ‘ How, gentlemen, shall I look ?’ Most of
the members apprehending that Mr. Pitt had gone rather too
far, were inclined to think that Mr. Fox had got the better of
him. But Mr. Pitt started up, and with one of those happy
turns, in which he so much excels, silenced his rival, and made
him sit down with a countenance, if possible, more abashed than
formerly. Look ! Sir, said he—look as you cannot look, if you
would—look as you dare' not look, if you could—look like an
honest man.”
In the London Chro'nicle for March, 1763, we find bitter com
plaints that since 1760, “every obsolete, useless place has been
revived, and every occasion of increasing salaries seized with
eagerness,” and that a great Whig leader “ has just condescended
to stipulate for an additional salary, without power, as the price
of his support to the Tory Government.”
In March, 1763, George III. gave four ships of war to the
King of Sardinia at the national expense, and in August appears
to have given a fifth vessel.
On the 23rd of April, 1763, No. 45 of the North Briton, a
journal which had been started in opposition to Lord Bute’s
paper, the Briton, was published, severely criticising the King’s
speech, and warmly attacking Lord Bute. This issue provoked
the ministers to a course of the utmost illegality. A general
warrant to seize all persons concerned in the publication of the
North Briton, without specifying their names, was immediately
issued by the Secretary of State, and a number of printers and
publishers were placed in custody, some of whom were not at
all concerned in the obnoxious publication. Late on the night
of the 29th of April, the messengers entered the house of John
Wilkes, M.P. for Aylesbury (the author of the article in
question), and produced their warrant, with which he refused
to comply.
On the following morning, however, he was
carried before the Secretaiy of State, and committed a close
prisoner to the Tower, his papers being previously seized
and sealed, and all access to his person strictly prohibited.
The warrant was . clearly an illegal one, and had only been
previously resorted to in one or two instances, and under very
extraordinary circumstances, of which there were none in the
present case. Wilkes’s friends immediately obtained a writ of
habeas corpus, which the ministers defeated by a mean subter
fuge ; and it was found necessary to obtain a second before
they could bring the prisoner before the Court of King’s Bench,
by which he was set at liberty, on the ground of his privilege
�40
The House of Brunswick.
as a Member of Parliament. He then opened an angry corre
spondence, followed by actions at law, against the Secretaries of
State, on the seizure of his papers, and for the wrongful arrest.
These actions abated, although in the one for the seizure of the
papers a verdict was given for £1,000 damages and costs. But
in the meantime the Attorney-General had been directed to in
stitute a prosecution against Wilkes in the King’s Bench for
libel, and the King had ordered him to be deprived of his com
mission as Colonel in the Buckinghamshire Militia. The King
further exhibited his resentment by depriving Lord Temple of
the Lord-Lieutenancy of the same county, and striking his name
out of the Council-book, for an expression of personal sym
pathy which had fallen from him. Worse than all, this King
George III. actually deprived General A’Court, M.P. for Heytesbury, of his commission as Colonel of the uth Dragoons
for having voted that the arrest of Wilkes was a breach of pri
vilege. He also caused it to be intimated to General Conway,
“ that the King cannot trust his army in the hands of a man who
votes in Parliament against him.”
The House of Commons ordered the North Briton to be
burned by the common hangman; but when the authorities
attempted to carry out the sentence, the people assembled, res
cued the number, and burned instead a large jack-boot, the
popular hieroglyphic for the unpopular minister.
Amongst the many rhymed squibs the following is worth re
petition :—
“ Because the North Briton inflamed the whole nation,
To flames they commit it to show detestation ;
But throughout old England how joy would have spread,
Had the real North Briton been burnt in its stead!”
The North Briton of the last line is, of course, the Scotch Earl
Bute.
As an illustration of the then disgraceful state of the English
law, it is enough to notice that Lord Halifax, the Secretary of
State, by availing himself of his privileges as a peer, managed
to delay John Wilkes in his action from June, 1763, to Novem
ber, 1764 ; and then, Wilkes having been outlawed, the noble
Earl appeared and pleaded the outlawry as a bar to further pro
ceedings. Ultimately, after five years’ delay, Wilkes annulled
the outlawry, and recovered £4,000 damages against Lord
Halifax. For a few months Wilkes was the popular idol, and
had he been a man of real earnestness and integrity, might
have taken a permanently leading position in the State.
In August, 1763, Frederick, Duke of York, was born. He
was created Prince Bishop of Osnaburg before he could speak.
The King and Queen were much dissatisfied because the clergy
of the diocese, who did not dispute the baby bishop’s ability to
attend to the souls of his flock, yet refused to entrust to him
the irresponsible guardianship of the episcopal funds. This
bishopric had actually been kept vacant by the King nearly
�The House of Brunswick.
41
three years, in order that he might not give it to the Duke of
York or Duke of Cumberland. The income was about ,£25,000
a year, and it was to secure this Prince Bishopric for the Duke
of Cumberland that George II. burdened the country with
several subsidies to petty European sovereigns.
The King’s sister, Augusta, was, like the rest of the Brunswick
Family, on extremely bad terms with her mother, the Princess
of Wales. The Princess Augusta was married on January 16th,
1764, to the hereditary Prince of Brunswick, who received
.£80,000, besides £8,000, a year for becoming the husband of
one of our Royal Family. In addition to this, George III. and
Queen Charlotte insulted the newly-married couple, who returned
the insult with interest. Pleasant people, these Brunswicks !
In March, 1764, the first steps were taken in the endeavour to
impose taxes on the American colonies, an endeavour which at
length resulted in their famous rebellion. The commanders of
our ships of war on the American coast were sworn in to act as
revenue officers, the consequence of which was the frequently
illegal seizures of ships and cargoes without any means of
redress for the Americans in their own colony. As though to
add to the rising disaffection, Mr. Grenville proposed a new
stamp-tax. As soon as the Stamp Act reached Boston, the
ships in the harbour hung their colours half-mast high, the bells
were rung muffled, the Act of Parliament was reprinted with a
death’s head for title, and sold in the streets as the “ Folly of
England and Ruin of America.” The Americans refused to
use stamped paper. The Government distributors of stamps
were either forced to return to England, or were obliged to re
nounce publicly and upon oath their official employment ; and
when the matter was again brought before the English House
of Commons, Pitt denied the right of Parliament to levy taxa
tion on persons who had no right to representation, and ex
claimed : “ I rejoice that America has resisted ; three millions
of people so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to
submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make
slaves of all the rest.” The supporters of the Government
actually advanced the ridiculously absurd and most monstrous
pretension that America was in law represented in Parliament
as .part of the manor of East Greenwich I
The Earl of Abercom and Lord Harcourt appear to have been
consulted by the Queen as to the effect of the previous marriage
of George III. with Hannah Lightfoot, who seems to have been
got rid of by some arrangement for a second marriage between
her and a Mr. Axford, to whom a sum of money was paid. It
is alleged that this was done without the knowledge of the King,
who entreated Lord Chatham to discover where the Quakeress
had gone. No fresh communication, however, took place between
George III. and Hannah Lightfoot; and the King’s first attack
of insanity, which took place in 1764, is strongly suggested to
have followed the more than doubts as to the legality of the
second marriage and the legitimacy of the Royal Family. Hannah
E
�42
The House of Brunswick.
Lightfoot died in the winter of 1764, and in the early part of the
year 1765, the King being then scarcely sane, a second ceremony
of marriage with the Queen was privately performed by
the Rev. Dr. Wilmot at Kew Palace. Hannah Lightfoot left
children by George III., but of these nothing is known.
In the winter of 1764, and spring of 1765, George III. was, in
diplomatic language, labouring under an indisposition ; in truth,
he was mad. Her present Gracious Majesty often labours under
an indisposition, but no loyal subject would suggest any sort of
doubt as to her mental condition. A Bill was introduced in 1764
in the House of Lords, to provide for a Regency in case of the
recurrence of any similar attack. In the discussion on this Bill,
a doubt arose as to who were to be regarded as the Royal Family;
fortunately, the Law Lords limited it to the descendants of George
II. If a similar definition prevailed to-day, we should perhaps
not be obliged to pay the pensions to the Duke of Cambridge
and Princess Mary, which they at present receive as members of
the Royal Family.
On the 30th of October, 1765, William, Duke of Cumberland,
the King’s uncle, died. Dr. Doran says of him : “As he grew in
manhood, his heart became hardened ; he had no affection for
his family, nor fondness for the army, for which he affected
attachment. When his brother (Prince Frederick) died, pleasure,
not pain, made his heart throb, as he sarcastically exclaimed,
‘ It’s a great blow to the country, but I hope it will recover in
time.’ He was the author of what was called ‘the bloody mutiny
act.’ ‘ He was dissolute and a gambler.’ After the ‘disgraceful
surrender of Hanover and the infamous convention of Klosterseven,’ his father George II. said of him, ‘Behold the son who
has ruined me, and disgraced himself.”’ His own nephew,
George III., believed the Duke to be capable of murder. The
Dukes of Cumberland in this Brunswick family have had a most
unfortunate reputation.
In 1766, William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, brother of the
King, married Maria, Countess-Dowager of Waldegrave. This
marriage was at the time repudiated by the rest of the Royal
Family.
In October of the same year, Caroline Matilda, the King’s
sister, married Christian, King of Denmark, an unfeeling, disso
lute brute. Our Princess, who lived very unhappily, was after
wards accused of adultery, and rescued from ■ punishment by a
British man-of-war.
In the autumn of 1766, in consequence of the high price of
provisions and taxes, large gatherings took place in many parts
of the kingdom ; these assemblages were dispersed with con
siderable loss of life, of course by the military, which the House
of Brunswick was not slow to use in checking political mani
festations. At Derby the people were charged by the cavalry,
at Colton eight were shot dead, in Gloucestershire many lives
were lost; in fact, from Exeter to Berwick-on-Tweed, there was
one ferment of discontent and disaffection. The people were
�The House of Brunswick.
43
-heavily taxed, the aristocracy corrupt and careless. As an in
stance of the madness of the governing classes, it is sufficient to
point out that in 1767, while taxation was increasing, the landed,
gentry, who were rapidly appropriating common lands under
Private Enclosure Acts, most audaciously reduced the land tax
by one-fourth. During the first thirty-seven years of the reign
of George III., there were no less than 1,532 Enclosure Acts
passed, affecting in all 2,804,197 acres of land filched from the
nation by a few families. Wealth took and poverty lost; riches
got land without burden, and labour inherited burden in lieu of
land. It is worth notice that in the early part of the reign of
George III., land yielding about a sixth or seventh of its present
rental, paid the same nominal tax that it does to-day, the actual
amount paid at the present time being however smaller through
redemption ; and yet then the annual interest on the National
Debt was under ,£4,500,000, while to-day it is over ,£26,000,000.
Then the King’s Civil List covered all the expenses of our State
ministers and diplomatic representatives ; to-day, an enormous
additional sum is required, and a Prime Minister professing
economy, and well versed in history, has actually the audacity to
pretend that the country gains by its present Civil List arrange
ment.
0
In 1769, George III. announced to his faithful Commons that
he owed half a million. John Wilkes and a few others protested,
but the money was voted.
In 1770, King George III. succeeded in making several buttons
.at Kew, and as this is, as far as I am aware, the most useful work
of his life, I desire to give it full prominence. His son, after
wards George IV., made a shoebuckle. No other useful product
has resulted directly from the efforts of any male of the family.
In 1770, Henry, Duke of Cumberland, the King’s brother, was
sued by Lord Grosvenor for crim, con., and had to pay ,£10,000
damages. This same Henry, in the following year, went through
the form of marriage with a Mrs. Horton, which marriage,
being repudiated by the Court, troubled him but little, and in
the lifetime of the lady he contracted a second alliance, which
gave rise to the famous Olivia Serres legitimacy issue.
The Royal Marriage Act, a most infamous measure for en
suring the perpetuation of vice, and said to be the result of the
Lightfoot experience, was introduced to Parliament by a mes
sage from George III., on the 20th February, 1772, twelve days
after the death of the Princess-Dowager of Wales. George III.
wrote to Lord North on the 26th February : “ I expect every
nerve to be strained to carry the Bill. It is not a question re
lating to the Administration, but personally to myself, therefore
I have a right to expect a hearty support from every one in my
service, and I shall remember defaulters.”
In May, 1773, the East India Company, having to come before
Parliament for. borrowing powers, a select committee was ap
pointed, whose inquiries laid open cases of rapacity and treachery
involving the highest personages, and a resolution was carried.
�44
The House of Brunswick.
in the House of Commons affirming that Lord Clive had dis
honourably possessed himself of ^234,000 at the time of the
deposition of Surajah Dowlah, and the establishment of Meer
Jaffier. Besides this, it was proved that Lord Clive received
several other large sums in succeeding years. Phillimore describesthis transaction, in terrific language, as one of “ disgusting and
sordid turpitude,” declaring that “ individual members of the
English Government were to be paid for their treachery by a
hire, the amount of which is almost incredible.” A few yearsafter this exposure, Lord Clive committed suicide.
On the 18th of December, 1773, the celebrated cargoes of tea
were thrown overboard in Boston Harbour. The tea duty was
a trifling one, but was unfortunately insisted upon by the King’sGovernment as an assertion of the right of the British Parliament
to tax the unrepresented American colonies, a right the colonistsstrenuously and successfully denied.
The news of the firm attitude of the Bay State colonists
arrived in England early in March, 1774, and Lord North’s Go
vernment, urged by the King, first deprived Boston of her
privileges as a port; secondly, took away from the State ox
Massachusetts the whole of the executive powers granted by the
charter of William III., and vested the nomination of magis
trates of every kind in the King, or royally-appointed Governor ;
and thirdly, carried an enactment authorising persons accused
of political offences committed in Boston to be sent home toEngland to be tried.
These monstrous statutes provoked the most decided resist
ance ; all the other American colonists joined with Boston, and
a solemn league and covenant was entered into for suspending
all commercial intercourse with Great Britain until the obnoxious .
acts were repealed. On the 5th of Sept., 1774, a congress of fiftyone representatives from twelve old colonies assembled m Phila
delphia. The instructions given to them disclaimed every idea
of independence, recognised the constitutional authoiity of the:
mother country, and acknowledged the prerogatives of the crown ;
but unanimously declared that they would never give up the
rights and liberties derived to them from their ancestors asBritish subjects, and pronounced the late acts relative to the
colony of Massachusetts Bay to be unconstitutional, oppressive,
and dangerous. The first public act of the congress was a resolution declarative of their favourable disposition towards the
colony above mentioned; and by subsequent resolutions, they
formally approved the opposition it had given to the obnoxious
acts, and declared that if an attempt were made to carry them into
execution by force, the colony should be supported by all America.
The following extract is from the “ Address of the Twelve
United Provinces to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, when
force was actually used
“ We can retire beyond the reach of
your navy, and, without any sensible diminution of the necessaries
of life, enjoy a luxury, which from that period you will want
the luxury of being free?
�The House of Brunswick.
45
On the 16th November, 1775, Edmund Burke proposed the
renunciation on the part of Great Britain of the exercise of taxa
tion in America, the repeal of the obnoxious duty on tea, and
a general pardon for past political offenders. This was directly
■ opposed by the King, who had lists brought to him of how the
members spoke and voted, and was negatived in the House of
■Commons by 210 votes against 105. On the 20th November,
after consultation with George III., Lord North introduced a
Bill by which all trade and commerce with the thirteen United
■ colonies were interdicted. It authorised the seizure, whether in
harbour or on the high seas, of all vessels laden with American
property, and by a cruel stretch of refined tyranny it rendered
all persons taken on board American vessels, liable to be entered
as sailors on board British ships of war, and to serve (if required)
against their own countrymen. About the same time, as we
learn by a “ secret ” dispatch from Lord Dartmouth to General
Howe, the King had been unmanly enough to apply to the
Czarina of Russia for the loan of 20,000 Russian soldiers to
-enable him to crush his English subjects in the American
colonies. As yet the Americans had made no claim for inde
pendence. They were only petitioners for justice.
In order to crush out the spirit of liberty in the American
colonies, the Government of George III., in February, 1776,
hired 17,000 men from the Landgrave and Hereditary Prince of
Hesse Cassel, and from the Duke of Brunswick. Besides these,
there were levies of troops out of George III.’s Hanoverian
dominions, and that nothing might be wanting to our glory, the
King’s agents stirred up the Cherokee and Creek Indians to
.scalp, ravish, and plunder the disaffected colonists. Jesse says :
“ The newly-arrived troops comprised several thousand kid
napped German soldiers, whom the cupidity of the Duke of
Brunswick, of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and other Ger
man Princes, had induced to let out for hire to the British Go
vernment.......... Frederick of Prussia not only denounced the
traffic as a most scandalous one, but wherever, it is said, the
unfortunate hirelings had occasion to march through any part
<of his dominions, used to levy a toll upon them, as if they had
been so many head of bullocks........... They had been sold,
.he said, as cattle, and therefore he was entitled to exact the
toll.”
The consequence of all this was, on the 4th July, 1776, the
famous declaration of the American Congress.
The history
of the reigning sovereign, they said, was a history of repeated
.-injuries and usurpations. So evidently was it his intention to
establish an absolute despotism, that it had become their duty,
.as well as their right, to secure themselves against further ag
gressions...... In every stage of these oppressions,” proceeds the
Declaration, “ we have petitioned for redress in the most humble
terms. Our petitions have been answered only by repeated in
juries. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
�The House of Brunswick.
45
On the 16th November, 1775, Edmund Burke proposed the
renunciation on the part of Great Britain of the exercise of taxa
tion in America, the repeal of the obnoxious duty on tea, and
a general pardon for past political offenders. This was directly
■ opposed by the King, who had lists brought to him of how the
members spoke and voted, and was negatived in the House of
■Commons by 210 votes against 105. On the 20th November,
after consultation with George III., Lord North introduced a
Bill by which all trade and commerce with the thirteen United
■ colonies were interdicted. It authorised the seizure, whether in
harbour or on the high seas, of all vessels laden with American
property, and by a cruel stretch of refined tyranny it rendered
all persons taken on board American vessels, liable to be entered
as sailors on board British ships of war, and to serve (if required)
against their own countrymen. About the same time, as we
learn by a “ secret ” dispatch from Lord Dartmouth to General
Howe, the King had been unmanly enough to apply to the
Czarina of Russia for the loan of 20,000 Russian soldiers to
-enable him to crush his English subjects in the American
colonies. As yet the Americans had made no claim for inde
pendence. They were only petitioners for justice.
In order to crush out the spirit of liberty in the American
colonies, the Government of George III., in February, 1776,
hired 17,000 men from the Landgrave and Hereditary Prince of
Hesse Cassel, and from the Duke of Brunswick. Besides these,
there were levies of troops out of George III.’s Hanoverian
dominions, and that nothing might be wanting to our glory, the
King’s agents stirred up the Cherokee and Creek Indians to
.scalp, ravish, and plunder the disaffected colonists. Jesse says :
“ The newly-arrived troops comprised several thousand kid
napped German soldiers, whom the cupidity of the Duke of
Brunswick, of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and other Ger
man Princes, had induced to let out for hire to the British Go
vernment.......... Frederick of Prussia not only denounced the
traffic as a most scandalous one, but wherever, it is said, the
unfortunate hirelings had occasion to march through any part
<of his dominions, used to levy a toll upon them, as if they had
been so many head of bullocks........... They had been sold,
.he said, as cattle, and therefore he was entitled to exact the
toll.”
The consequence of all this was, on the 4th July, 1776, the
famous declaration of the American Congress.
The history
of the reigning sovereign, they said, was a history of repeated
.-injuries and usurpations. So evidently was it his intention to
establish an absolute despotism, that it had become their duty,
.as well as their right, to secure themselves against further ag
gressions...... In every stage of these oppressions,” proceeds the
Declaration, “ we have petitioned for redress in the most humble
terms. Our petitions have been answered only by repeated in
juries. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
�46
The House of Brunswick.
people.” And the United Colonies solemnly declared them
selves to be “ free and independent States.”
In 1777, during this American war, Earl Chatham, in one of
his grand speeches, after denouncing “the traffic and barter
driven with every little pitiful German Prince that sells his sub
jects to the shambles of a foreign country,” he adds : “ The
mercenary aid on which you rely, irritates to an incurable re
sentment the minds of your enemies, whom you overrun with,'
the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them and
their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an,
American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was
landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never 1.
never ! never !” In reply to Lord Suffolk, who had said, in re
ference to employing the Indians, that “we were justified in
using all the means which God and nature had put into our
hands,” “ I am astonished,” exclaimed Lord Chatham, as he rose,.
“ shocked, to hear such principles confessed, to hear them avowed
in this House, or in this country ; principles equally unconstitu
tional, inhuman, and un-Christian. That God and Nature fut
into our hands ! I know not what idea that Lord may entertain
of God and nature, but I know that such abominable principles
are equally abhorrent to religion and humanity. What! attri
bute the sacred sanction of God and nature to the massacres of
the Indian scalping-knife, to the cannibal savage, torturing,
murdering, roasting, and eating; literally, my Lords, eating the
mangled victims of his barbarous battles 1”
And yet even after this we find George III. writing to Lord
North, on the 22nd of June, 1779 : “ I do not yet despair that,
with Clinton’s activity, and the Indians in their rear, the pro
vinces will soon now submit.”
Actually so late as the 27th of November, 1781, after the
surrender of Cornwallis, we find George III. saying that, “re
taining a firm confidence in the wisdom and protection of Divine
Providence,” he should be able “ by the valour of his fleets andarmies to conquer America.” Fox, in the House of Commons,
denounced this speech of the King’s as one “ breathing ven
geance, blood, misery, and rancour and “ as containing thesentiments of some arbitrary, despotic, hard-hearted, and un
feeling monarch, who, having involved his subjects in a ruinous
and unnatural war, to glut his feelings of revenge, was deter
mined to persevere in it in spite of calamity.” “ Divest the
speech,” said he, “ of its official forms, and what was its purport ?
‘ Our losses in America have been most calamitous ; the blood
of my subjects has flowed in copious streams ; the treasures of
. Great Britain have been wantonly lavished ; the load of taxes
imposed on an over-burthened country is become intolerable ;
my rage for conquest is unquenched ; my revenge unsated ; nor
can anything except the total subjugation of my American
subjects allay my animosity.’ ”
The following table shows what this disastrous war ultimately'
�The House of Brunswick.
47
cost this country in mere money ; no table can efficiently show
its cost in blood and misery :—
Year.
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
Total
Taxation.
£10,138,061
10,265,405
10,604,013
10,732,405
11,192,141
12,255,214
12,454,936
12,593,297
11,962,718
12,905,519
14,871,520
Loans.
—
£2,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
12,000,000
12,000,000
13,500,000
12,000,000
12,879,341
10,990,651
£129,975,229
£^93,869,992
The American war terminated in 1783 ; but as the loans >6f
the two following years were raised to wind up the expenses of
that struggle, it is proper they should be included. The total
expense of the American war will stand thus :—
Taxes
Loans
Advances by the Bank of England
Advances by the East India Company
Increase in the Unfunded Debt ...
,£129,975,229
93,869,992
110,000
3,200,000
5,170,273
Total
Deduct expense of a peace establish
ment for eleven years, as it stood in
1774
232,325,494
Nett cost of the American war
...
113,142,403
£119,183,091
In addition to this must be noted ,£1,340,000 voted as com
pensation to American loyalists in 1788, and £4,000 a year pen
sion since, and even now, paid to the descendants of William
Penn, amounting, with compound interest, to an enormous addi
tional sum, even to the present date, without reckoning future
liability. And this glorious colony parted from us in blood and
shame, in consequence of a vain attempt to gratify the desire
of the House of Brunswick to make New England contribute
to their German greed as freely and as servilely as Old England
had done.
Encouraged by the willingness with which his former debts
had been discharged, George III., in 1777, sent a second
message, but this time for the larger sum of £600,000, which
was not only paid, but an additional allowance of £100,000 a
year was voted to his Majesty, and £40,000 was given to the
Landgrave of Hesse.
ml. •;
�48
The House of Brunswick.
As an illustration of the barbarity of our laws, it is enough to
say that in 1777, Sarah Parker was burnt for counterfeiting silver
coin. In June, 1786, Phoebe Harris was burnt for the same
offence. And this in a reign when persons in high position
accused of murder, forgery, perjury, and robbery, escaped almost
scot free.
In April, 1778, ,£60,000 a year was settled on the six younger
princes, and £) 30,000 a year on the five princesses. These pen
sions, however, were professedly paid out of the King’s Civil
List, not avowedly in addition to it, as they are to-day. The
Duke of Buckingham stated that in 1778, and again in 1782, the
King threatened to abdicate. This threat, which unfortunately
was never carried out, arose from the King’s obstinate per
sistence in the worse than insane policy against the American
colonies.
In December, 1779, in consequence of England needing Irish
soldiers to make war on America, Ireland was graciously per
mitted to export Irish woollen manufactures. The indulgences,
however, to Ireland—even while the Ministers of George III.
were trying to enlist Irishmen to kill the English, Scotch, and
Irish in America—were made most grudgingly. Pious Protestant
George III. would not consent that any Irish Catholic should
own one foot of freehold land ; and Edmund Burke, in a letter
to an Irish peer, says that it was pride, arrogance, and a spirit
of domination,” which kept up “ these unjust legal disabilities.”
On the 8th February, 1780, Sir G. Savile presented the famous
Yorkshire petition, sighed by 8,000 freeholders, praying the House
of Commons to inquire into the management and expenditure of
public money, to reduce all exorbitant emoluments, and to abolish
all sinecure places, and unmerited pensions. Three days later,
Edmund Burke proposed a reduction of the national taxation
(which was then only a sixth part of its amount to day), and a
diminution of the power of the Crown. Burke was defeated, but
shortly after, on the motion of Mr. Dunning, the House of
Commons declared, bya majority of 18 against the Government,
“ That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and.
ought to be diminished.”
On the 20th March, 1782, Lord North, in consequence of the
impossibility of subduing the American colonies, determined to
resign. The King opposed this to the last, declaring that no
difficulties should induce him to consent to a peace acknowledg
ing the Independence of America. “ So distressing,” says Jesse,
“was the conflict which prevailed in the mind of George III.,
that he not only contemplated abandoning the Crown of Eng
land for the Electorate of Hanover, but orders had actually been
issued to have the royal yacht in readiness for his flight.” . What
a blessing to the country if he had really persevered in his reso
lution.
Charles James Fox, who now came into power for a brief space,
had, says Jesse, “ taught himself to look upon his sovereign as a
mere dull, obstinate, half-crazed, and narrow-minded bigot; a
�The House of Brunswick.
49
Prince whose shallow understanding had never been improved
by education, whose prejudices it was impossible to remove,
and whose resentments it would be idle to endeavour to soften.”
In 1784, George Prince of Wales was over head and ears in
debt, and the King, who appears to have hated him, refusing
any aid, he resorted to threats. Dr. Doran says : “ A conversa
tion is spoken of as having passed between the Queen and the
Minister, in which he is reported as having said, ‘ I much fear,
your Majesty, that the Prince, in his wild moments, may allow
expressions to escape him that may be injurious to the Crown.’
‘ There is little fear of that,’ was the alleged reply of the Oueen,
< he is too well aware of the consequences of such a course of
conduct to himself. As regards that point, therefore, I can rely
upon him.’ ”
Jesse says of the Prince of Wales, that between eighteen and
twenty, “ to be carried home drunk, or to be taken into custody
by the watch, were apparently no unfrequent episodes in the
early part of the career of the Heir to the Throne. Under the
auspices of his weak and frivolous uncle, the Duke of Cumber
land, the Prince’s conversation is said to have been a compound
of the slang of grooms and the wanton vocabulary of a brothel.”
“ When we hunt together,” said the King to the Duke of Glou
cester, “ neither my son nor my brother speak to me; and lately,
when the chase ended at a little village where there was but a
.single post-chaise to be hired, my son and brother got into it,
and drove off, leaving me to go home in a cart, if I could find
one.” And this is the family Mr. Disraeli holds up for English
men to worship 1
In July, 1782, Lord Shelburne came into office ; but he
“ always complained that the King had tricked and deserted
him,” and had “secretly connived at his downfall.” He re
signed office on the 24th February, 1783. An attempt was made
to form a Coalition Ministry, under the Duke of Portland. The
King complained of being treated with personal incivility, and
the attempt failed. On the 23rd March, the. Prince of Wales,
at the Queen’s Drawing-room, said : “ The King had refused to
accept the coalition, but by God he should be made to agree to
it.” Under the great excitement, the King’s health gave way.
The Prince, says Jesse, was a member of Brooks’s Club,
where, as Walpole tells us, the members were not only
strangely licentious ” in their talk about their sovereign, but
in their zeal for the interests of the heartless young Prince,
“ even wagered on the duration of the King’s reign.” The King
repeated his threat of abandoning the Throne, and retiring to
his Hanoverian dominions ; and told the Lord-Advocate, Dun
das, that he had obtained the consent of the Queen to his taking
this extraordinary step. Young William Pitt refusing twice to
accept the Premiership, Fox and Lord North came again into
power. ^30,000 was voted for the Prince of Wales’s debts, and.
.a similar sum to enable him to furnish his house. The “ un
natural” Coalition Ministry did not last long. Fox introduced
�50
The House of Brunswick.
his famous India Bill. The King, regarding it as a blow at the
power of the Crown, caballed and canvassed the Peers against
it. “ The welfare of thirty millions of people was overlooked
in the excitement produced by selfish interests, by party zeal,
and officious loyalty.” “ Instantly,” writes Lord Macaulay, “a.
troop of Lords of the Bedchamber, of Bishops who wished to
be translated, and of Scotch peers who wished to be re-elected,
made haste to change sides.” The Bill had passed the Com
mons by large majorities. The King opposed it like a partisan,
and when it was defeated in the Lords, cried, “ Thank God ! it
is all over ; the House has thrown out the Bill, so there is an
end of Mr. Fox.” The Ministers not resigning, as the King
expected they would, his Majesty dismissed them at once, send
ing to Lord North in the middle of the night for his seals of
office.
On the 19th December, 1783, William Pitt, then twenty-four
years of age, became Prime Minister of England. The House
of Commons passed a resolution, on the motion of Lord Surrey,
remonstrating with the King for having permitted his sacred
name to be unconstitutionally used in order to influence thedeliberations of Parliament. More than once the Commons
petitioned the King to dismiss Pitt from office. Pitt, with large
majorities against him, wished to resign ; but George III. said,
“If you resign, Mr. Pitt, I must resign too,” and he again
threatened, in the event of defeat, to abandon England, and re
tire to his Hanoverian dominions. Now our monarch, if a king,,
would have no Hanoverian dominions to retire to.
In 1784, £60,000 was voted by Parliament to defray the King’s
debts. In consequence of the large debts of the Prince of Wales,,
an interview was arranged at Carlton House on the 27th April,.
1785, between the Prince and Lord Malmesbury. The King,
the Prince said, had desired him to send in an exact statement
of his debts ; there was one item, however, of £25,000, on which
the Prince of Wales would give no information. If it were a
debt, argued the King, which his son was ashamed to explain,,
it was one which he ought not to defray. The Prince threatened
to go abroad, saying, “ I am ruined if I stay in England. I shall
disgrace myself as a man ; my father hates me, and has hated
me since I was seven years old........We are too wide asunder
ever to meet. The King has deceived me ; he has made me
deceive others. I cannot trust him, and he will not believe me.”
And this is the Brunswick family to which the English nation
are required to be blindly loyal !
In 1785, George Prince of Wales was married to a Roman
Catholic lady, Mrs. Fitzherbert, a widow. It is of course known
that the Prince treated the lady badly. This was not his first
experience, the history of Mary Robinson forming but one
amongst a long list of shabby liaisons. A question havingarisen before the House of Commons, during a discussion on
the debts owing by the Prince, Charles James Fox, on the written
authority of the Prince, denied that any marriage, regular or
�The House of Brunswick.
51
irregular, bad ever taken place, and termed it “ an invention......
destitute of the slightest foundation.” Mr. Fox’s denial was
made on the distinct written authority of the Prince, who offered,
through Fox, to give in the House of Lords the “fullest assur
ances of the utter falsehood ” of the allegation ; although not
only does everybody know to-day that the denial was untrue,
but in point of fact the fullest proofs of the denied marriage
exist at this very moment in the custody of Messrs. Coutts, the
bankers. Out of all the Brunswicks England has been cursed
with, George I. is the only one against whom there is no charge
of wanton falsehood to his ministers or subjects, and it is fairly
probable that his character for such truthfulness was preserved
by his utter inability to lie in our language.
Not only did George Prince of Wales thus deny his marriage
with Mrs. Fitzherbert, but repeated voluntarily the denial after
he became King George IV. Despite this denial, the King’s
executors, the Duke of Wellington and Sir William Knighton,
were compelled by Mrs. Fitzherbert to admit the proofs. The
marriage took place on the 21st December, 1785, and Mrs. Fitz
herbert being a Roman Catholic, the legal effect was to bar
Prince George and prevent him ever becoming the lawful King
of England. The documents above referred to as being at
Coutts’s, include—1. The marriage certificate. 2. A letter written
by the Prince of Wales acknowledging the marriage. 3. A will,,
signed by him, also acknowledging it, and other documents.
And yet George, our King, whom Mr. Disraeli praises, autho
rised Charles James Fox to declare the rumour of his marriage
“ a low malicious falsehood and then the Prince went to Mrs.
Fitzherbert and, like a mean, lying, hypocrite as he was, said,
“ Oh, Maria, only conceive what Fox did yesterday, he went
down to the House and denied that you and I were man and
wife.”
Although when George Prince of Wales had attained his
majority, he had an allowance of £50,000 a year, £60,000 to
furnish Carlton House, and .an additional ,£40,000 for cash tostart with, yet he was soon after deep in debt. In 1787,
£ 160,000 was voted, and a portion of the Prince’s debts was
paid. £20,000 further was added as a vote for Carlton House.
Thackeray says : “ Lovers of long sums have added up the
millions and millions which in the course of his brilliant exist
ence this single Prince consumed. Besides his income of
£50,000, £y0,000, £100,000, £120,000 a year, we read of three
applications to Parliament; debts to the amount of £160,000,
of £650,000, besides mysterious foreign loans, whereof he poc
keted the proceeds. What did he do for all this money ? Why
was he to have it ? If he had been a manufacturing town, or a
populous rural district, or an army of five thousand men, he
would not have cost more. He, one solitary stout man, who did
not toil, nor spin, nor fight—what had any mortal done that he
should be pampered so ?”
The proposed impeachment of Warren Hastings, which ac-
�52
The House of Brunswick.
tually commenced on February 13th, 1788, and which did not
conclude until eight years afterwards, excited considerable feel
ing, it being roundly alleged that Court protection had been
purchased by the late Governor-General of India, by means of
a large diamond presented to the King. The following rhymed
squib tells its own story. It was sung about the streets to the
tune of '' Derry Down —
“ I’ll sing you a song of a diamond so fine,
That soon in the crown of the monarch will shine ;
Of its size and its value the whole country rings,
By Hastings bestowed on the best of all Kings.
Derry down, &c.
“ From India this jewel was lately brought o’er,
Though sunk in the sea, it was found on the shore,
And just in the nick to St. James’s it got,
Convey’d in a bag by the brave Major Scott.
Derry down, &c.
“ Lord Sydney stepp’d forth, when the tidings were known,
It’s his office to carry such news to the throne ;—
Though quite out of breath, to the closet he ran,
And stammer’d with joy ere his tale he began.
Derry down, &c.
‘ Here’s a jewel, my liege, there’s none such in the land ;
Major Scott, with three bows, put it into my hand :
And he swore, when he gave it, the wise ones were bit,
For it never was shown to Dundas or to Pitt.’
Derry down, &c.
For Dundas,’ cried our sovereign, 'unpolished and rough,
Give him a Scotch pebble, it’s more than enough.
And jewels to Pitt, Hastings justly refuses,
For he has already more gifts than he uses.’
Derry down, &c.
'“'But run, Jenky, run !’ adds the King in delight,
‘ Bring the Queen and Princesses here for a sight;
They never would pardon the negligence shown,
If we kept from their knowledge so glorious a stone.
Derry down, &c.
''' But guard the door, Jenky, no credit we’ll win,
If the Prince in a frolic should chance to step in :
The boy to such secrets of State we’ll ne’er call,
Let him wait till he gets our crown, income, and all.’
Derry down, &c.
'' In the Princesses run, and surprised cry, ' Ola I
’Tis big as the egg of a pigeon, papa 1’
‘And a pigeon of plumage worth plucking is he,’
Replies our good monarch, ‘ who sent it to me.’
Derry down, &c.
�The House of Brunswick.
53
il Madame Schwellenberg peep’d through the door ata chink,.
And tipp’d on the diamond a sly German wink ;
As much as to say, 4 Can we ever be cruel
To him who has sent us so glorious a jewel?’
Derry down, &c.
“ Now God save the Queen ! while the people I teach,
How the King may grow rich while the Commons impeach
Then let nabobs go plunder, and rob as they will,
And throw in their diamonds as grist to his mill.
Derry down, &c.”
It was believed that the King had received not one diamond,,
but a large quantity, and that they were to be the purchase
money of Hastings’s acquittal. Caricatures on the subject wereto be seen in the window of every print-shop. In one of these
Hastings was represented wheeling away in a barrow the King,
with his crown and sceptre, observing, “ What a man buys, he
may selland, in another, the King was exhibited on his kneesr
with his mouth wide open, and Warren Hastings pitching
diamonds into it. Many other prints, some of them bearing
evidence of the style of the best caricaturists of the day, kept up
the agitation on this subject. It happened that there was a quack
in the town, who pretended to eat stones, and bills of his exhibi
tion were placarded on the walls, headed, in large letters, “The
great stone-eater 1” The caricaturists took the hint, and drew
the King with a diamond between his teeth, and a heap of othersbefore him, with the inscription, “ The greatest stone-eater !”
We borrow a few sentences from Lord Macaulay to enableour readers to judge, in brief space, the nature of Warren Hastings’s position, standing impeached, as he did, on a long string of
charges, some of them most terrible in their implication of
violence, falsehood, fraud, and rapacity.. Macaulay thus pictures
the situation between the civilised Christian and his tributaries :—On one side was a band of English functionaries, daring, in
telligent, eager to be rich. On the other side was a great native
population, helpless, timid, and accustomed to crouch under
oppression.” When some new act of rapacity was resisted there'
came war; but “ a war of Bengalees against Englishmen waslike a war of sheep against wolves, of men against demons.” There
was a long period before any one dreamed that justice and mo
rality should be features of English rule in India. 44 During the
interval, the business of a servant of the Company was simply
to wring out of the natives a hundred or two hundred thousand
pounds as speedily as possible, that he might return home before
his constitution had suffered from the heat, to marry a peer’sdaughter, to buy rotten boroughs in Cornwall, and to give balls
in St. James’s Square.” Hastings was compelled to turn hisattention to foreign affairs. The object of his diplomacy was at
this time simply to get money. The finances of his government
were in an embarrassed state, and this embarrassment he was
determined to relieve by some means, fair or foul. The principle
�■54
The House of Brunswick.
which directed all his dealings with his neighbours is fully ex
pressed. by the old motto of one of the great predatory families
of Teviotdale— Thou shalt want ere I want.” He seems to
have laid it down, as a fundamental proposition which could not
be disputed, that, when he had not as many lacs of rupees as the
public service lequired, he was to take them from anybody who
had. One thing, indeed, is to be said in excuse for him. The
pressure applied to him by his employers at home, was such as
only the highest virtue could have withstood, such as left him
no choice except to commit great wrongs, or to resign his high
post, and with that post all his hopes of fortune and distinction.
Hastings was in need of funds to carry on the government of
Bengal, and to send remittances to London ; and Sujah Dowlah
had an ample revenue. Sujah Dowlah was bent on subjugating
the Rohillas ; and Hastings had at his disposal the only force
‘by which the Rohillas could be subjugated. It was agreed that
an English army should be lent to Nabob Vizier, and that for
the loan he should pay four hundred thousand pounds sterling
besides defraying all the charge of the troops while employed
in his service. _ “ I really cannot see,” says Mr. Gleig, “ upon
what grounds, either of political or moral justice, this propostion
‘deserves to be stigmatised as infamous.” If we understand the
meaning of words, it is infamous to commit a wicked action for
hire, and it is wicked to engage in war without provocation. In
this particular war, scarcely one aggravating circumstance was
wanting. The object of the Rohilla war was this, to deprive a
large population, who had never done us the least harm of a '
.good government, and to place them, against their will, under an
execrably bad one...... The horrors of Indian war were let loose
on the fair valleys and cities of Rohilcund. The whole country
was in a blaze. More than a hundred thousand people fled from
their homes to pestilential jungles, preferring famine, and fever
and the haunts of tigers, to the tyranny of him to whom an
English and a Christian government had, for shameful lucre
sold their substance, and their blood, and the honour of their
wives and daughters...... Mr. Hastings had only to put down by
main force the brave struggles of innocent men fighting for their
liberty. Their military resistance crushed, his duties ended ;
and he had then only to fold his arms and look on, while their
villages were burned, their children butchered, and their women
violated...... We hasten to the end of this sad and disgraceful
story. The war ceased. The finest population in India was
subjected to a greedy, cowardly, cruel tyrant. Commerce and
agriculture languished. The rich province which had tempted
the cupidity of Sujah Dowlah became the most miserable part
even of his miserable dominions. Yet is the injured nation not
extinct. At long intervals gleams of its ancient spirit have
-flashed forth ; and even at this day valour, and self-respect, and
a chivalrous feeling rare among Asiatics, and a bitter remem
brance of the] great crime of England, distinguish that noble
Afghan race.”
�The House of Brunswick.
55
Partly in consequence of the proposed legislation by Fox on
the affairs of the East India Company, and partly from per
sonal antagonism, members of the Indian Council hostile to
Governor-General Hastings were sent out to India. Amongst
his most prominent antagonists was Francis, the reputed author
of Junius’s Letters. It was to Francis especially that the Maha
rajah Nuncomar of Bengal addressed himself. “ He put into
the hands of Francis, with great ceremony, a paper containing
several charges of the most serious description. By this docu
ment Hastings was accused of putting offices up to sale, and of
receiving bribes for suffering offenders to escape. In particular,
it was alleged that Mahommed Reza Khan had been dis
missed with impunity, in consideration of a great sum paid to
the Governor-General...... He stated that Hastings had received
a large sum for appointing Rajah Goordas treasurer of the
Nabob’s household, and for committing the care of his High
ness’s person to 'Munny Begum. He put in a letter purporting
to bear the seal of the Munny Begum, for the purpose of estab
lishing the truth of his story.”
Much evidence was taken before the Indian Council, where
there was considerable conflict between the friends and enemies
of Hastings. “ The majority, however, voted that the charge
was made out; that Hastings had corruptly received between
thirty and forty thousand pounds ; and that he ought to be com
pelled to refund.”
Now, however, comes an item darker and more disgraceful, if
possible, than what had preceded.
“ On a sudden, Calcutta was astounded by the news that
Nuncomar had been taken up on a charge of felony, committed,
and thrown into the common gaol. The crime imputed to him
was, that six years before he had forged a bond. The osten
sible prosecutor was a native. But it was then, and still is, the
opinion of everybody, idiots and biographers excepted, that
Hastings was the real mover in the business.” The ChiefJustice Impey, one of Hastings’s creatures, pushed on a mock
trial, “a verdict of Guilty was returned, and the Chief-Justice
pronounced sentence of death on the prisoner.......... Of Impey’s
conduct it is impossible to speak too severely. He acted un
justly in refusing to respite Nuncomar. No rational- man can
doubt that he took this course in order to gratify the GovernorGeneral. If we had ever had any doubts on that point, they
would have been dispelled by a letter which Mr. Gleig has
published. Hastings, three or four years later, described Impey
as the man £ to whose support he was at one time indebted for
the safety of his fortune, honour, and reputation.’ These strong
words can refer only to the case of Nuncomar ; and they must
mean that Impey hanged Nuncomar in order to support Has
tings. It is therefore our deliberate opinion that Impey, sitting
as a judge, put a man unjustly to death in order to serve a poli
tical purpose.”
Encouraged by success, a few years later, Hastings, upon the
�56
The House of Brunswick.
most unfair pretext, made war upon and plundered the Rajah of
Benares, and a little later subjected the eunuchs of the Begums
of Oude to physical torture, to make them confess where the
royal treasure was hidden.
It is evident from Miss Burney’s diary that the King and.
Queen warmly championed the cause of Warren Hastings, who,
after a wearisome impeachment, was acquitted.
In 1788, the King’s insanity assumed a more violent form than
usual, and on a report from the Privy Council, the subject was
brought before Parliament. In the Commons, Pitt and the Tory
party contended that the right of providing for the government of
the country in cases where the monarch was unable to perform
his duties, belonged to the nation at large, to be exercised by its
representatives in Parliament. Fox and the Whigs, on the other
hand, maintained that the Prince of Wales possessed the in
herent right to assume the government. Pitt seizing this argu
ment as it fell from Fox, said, at the moment, to the member
seated nearest to him, “ I’ll unwhig the gentleman for the rest
of his life.”
During the discussions on the Regency Bill, Lord Thurlow,
who was then Lord Chancellor, acted the political rat, and
coquetted with both parties. When the King’s recovery was
announced by the royal physicians, Thurlow, to cover his
treachery, made an extravagant speech in defence of Pitt’s
views, and one laudatory of the King. After enumerating the
rewards received from the King, he said, “ and if I forget the
monarch who has thus befriended me, may my great Creator
forget me.” John Wilkes, who was present in the House of
Lords, said, in a stage aside, audible to many of the peers, “For
get you, he will see you damned first.” Phillimore, describing
Lord Chancellor Thurlow, says that he—“ either from an in
stinctive delight in all that was brutal ” (which did not prevent
him from being a gross hypocrite), “ or from a desire to please
George III.—supported the Slave Trade, and the horrors of the
Middle Passage, with the uncompromising ferocity of a Liver
pool merchant or a Guinea captain.”
It appears that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York
exhibited what was considered somewhat indecent eagerness to
have the King declared irrecoverably insane, and on more than
one occasion the Queen refused to allow either of these Royal
Princes access to the King’s person, on the ground that their
violent conduct retarded his recovery. The Prince of Wales and
Duke of York protested in writing against the Queen’s hostility
to them, and published the protest. Happy family, these Brunswicks ! Dr. Doran declares : “There was assuredly no decency
in the conduct of the Heir-apparent, or of his next brother. They
were gaily flying from club to club, party to party, and did not
take the trouble even to assume the sentiment which they could
not feel. ‘ If we were together,’ says Lord Granville, in a letter
inserted in his Memoirs, ‘ I would tell you some particulars of
the Prince of Wales’s behaviour to the King and Queen, within
�The House of Brunswick.
57
these few days, that would make your blood run cold.’ It was
said that if the King could only recover and learn what had been
said and done during his illness, he would hear enough to drive
him again into insanity. The conduct of his eldest sons was
marked by its savage inhumanity.” Jesse says : “ The fact is a
painful one to relate, that on the 4th December—the day on
which Parliament assembled, and when the King’s malady was
at its worst—the graceless youth (the Duke of York) not only
held a meeting of the opposition at his own house, but afterwards
proceeded to the House of Lords, in order to hear the deposi
tions of the royal physicians read, and to listen to the painful
details of his father’s lunacy. Moreover the same evening we
track both the brothers (the Prince of Wales and the Duke of
York) to Brooks’s, where in a circle of boon companions, as irre
verent as themselves, they are said to have been in the habit
of indulging in the most shocking indecencies, of which the
King’s derangement was the topic. On such occasions, we are
told, not only did they turn their parents into ridicule, and blab
the secrets of the chamber of sickness at Windsor, but the Prince
even, went to such unnatural lengths as to employ his talents for
mimicry, in which he was surpassed by few of his contempora
ries in imitating the ravings and gestures of his stricken father.
As for the Duke of York, we are assured that ‘ the brutality of the
stupid sot disgusted even the most profligate of his associates.’ ”
Even after the King’s return to reason had been vouched by the
physicians, William Grenville, writing to Lord Buckingham,
says that the two princes “ amused themselves with spreading
the report that the King was still out of his mind.” When the
great thanksgiving for the King’s recovery took place at Saint
Paul’s, the conduct of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of
York, in the Cathedral itself, is described “ as having been in the
highest degree irreverent, if not indecent.” Sir William Young
writes to Lord Buckingham, “ The day will come when English
men will bring these Princes to their senses.” Alas for England
the day has not yet come !
’
In 1789, a great outcry was raised against the Duke of York
on account of his licentiousness. In 179°, the printer of the
Times newspaper was fined ^100 for libelling the Prince of
Wales, and a second ^100 for libelling the Duke of York. It
was in this year that the Prince of Wales, and the Dukes of
York and Clarence, issued joint and several bonds to an enor
mous amount—it is said, ,£1,000,000 sterling, and bearing 6 per
cent, interest. These bonds were taken up chiefly abroad; and
some Frenchmen who subscribed, being unable to obtain either
principal or interest, applied to the Court of Chancery, in order
to charge the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. Others of '
the foreign holders of bonds had recourse to other proceedings
to enforce their claims. In nearly every case the claimants
were arrested by the Secretary of State’s order, and sent out of
England under the Alien Act, and when landed in their own
country were again arrested for treasonable communication with
F
�58
The House of Brunswick.
the enemy, and perished on the scaffold. MM. De Baume,
Chaudot, Mette, Aubert, Vaucher, and others, all creditors of the
Prince, were thus arrested under the Duke of Portland’s war
rant, and on their deportation re-arrested for treason, and guillo
tined. Thus were some of the debts of the Royal Family of
Brunswick settled, if not paid. Honest family, these Brunswicks 1
George Prince of Wales and the Duke of York were con
stant patrons of prize fights, races, and gambling tables, largely
betting, and not always paying their wagers when they lost. In
the autumn of 1791 a charge was made against the Prince of
Wales that he allowed his horse Escape to run badly on the
20th of October, and when heavily betted against caused the
same horse to be ridden to win. A brother of Lord Lake, who
was friendly to the Prince, and who managed some of his
racing affairs, evidently believed there was foul play, and so did
the Jockey Club, who declared that if the Prince permitted the
same jockey, Samuel Chifney, to ride again, no gentleman
would start against him. A writer employed by George Prince
of Wales to defend his character says : “ It may be asked, why
did not the Prince of Wales declare upon his honour, that no
foul play had been used with respect to Escape’s first race ?
Such a declaration would at once have solved all difficulties,
and put an end to all embarrassments. But was it proper for
the Prince of Wales to have condescended to such a submis
sion ? Are there not sometimes suspicions of so disgraceful a
nature afloat, and at the same time so improbable withal, that
if the person, who is the object of them, condescends to reply
to them, he degrades himself? Was it to be expected of the
Prince of Wales that he should purge himself, by oath, like his
domestic ? Or was it to be looked for, that the first subject in
the realm, the personage whose simple word should have com
manded deference, respect, and belief, was to submit himself to
the examination of the Jockey Club, and answer such questions
as they might have thought proper to have proposed to him ?”
This, coming from a family like the Brunswicks, and from one
of four brothers who, like their highnesses of Wales, York, Kent,
and Cumberland, had each in turn declared himself upon honour
not guilty of some misdemeanour or felony, is worthy a note of
admiration. George, Prince of Wales, declared himself not
guilty of bigamy ; the Duke of York declared himself not guilty
of selling promotion in the army. Both these Princes publicly
declared themselves not guilty of the charge of trying to hinder
their royal father’s restoration to sanity. The Duke of Kent,
the Queen’s father, declared that he was no party to the subor
nation of witnesses against his own brother. The Duke of
Cumberland pledged his oath that he had never been guilty of
sodomy and murder.
In September, 1791, the Duke of York was married to the
Princess Frederica, daughter of the King of Prussia, with whom
he lived most unhappily for a few years. The only effect of this
�The House of Brunswick.
59
marriage on the nation was that ,£ 18,000 a year was voted as an
extra allowance to his Royal Highness the Duke of York. This
was in addition to 100,000 crowns given out of the Civil List
as a marriage portion to the Princess. Dr. Doran says of the
Duchess of York : “For six years she bore with treatment from
the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ such as no trooper under him would
have inflicted on a wife equally deserving. At the end of that
time the ill-matched pair separated.” Kind husbands, these
Brunswicks!
In a print published on the 24th May, 1792, entitled “Vices
Overlooked in the New Proclamation,” Avarice is represented
by King George and Queen Charlotte, hugging their hoarded
millions with extreme satisfaction, a book of interest tables lying
at hand. This print is divided into four compartments, repre
senting : 1. Avarice ; 2. Drunkenness, exemplified in the person
of the Prince of Wales ; 3. Gambling, the favourite amusement
of the Duke of York; and 4. Debauchery,the Duke of Clarence
and Mrs. Jordan—as the four notable vices of the Royal family
of Great Britain. If the print had to be re-issued to-day, it
would require no very vivid imagination to provide materials
from the living members of the Royal Family to refill the four
compartments.
Among various other remarkable trials occurring in 1792,
those of Daniel Holt and AVilliam Winterbottom are here wor
thy of notice, as illustrating the fashion in which the rule of the
Brunswick monarchy has trenched on our political liberties.
The former, a printer of Nottingham, was convicted and sen
tenced to two years’ imprisonment for re-publishing, verbatim
a political tract, originally circulated without prosecution by the
Thatched House Tavern Association, of which Mr. Pitt and
the Duke of Richmond had been members. The other, a dis
senting minister at Plymouth, of virtuous and highly respectable
character, was convicted of sedition, and sentenced to four
years’ imprisonment in the gaol of Newgate, for two sermons
preached m commemoration of the revolution of 1688. The
indictment charged him with affirming, “That his Majesty was
placed upon the throne on condition of keeping certain laws
and rules, and if he does- not observe them, he has no more
right to the crown than the Stuarts had.”. All the Whigs in the
kingdom might, doubtless, have been comprehended in a similar
indictment. And if the doctrine affirmed by the Rev. Mr. Win
terbottom be denied, the monstrous reverse of the proposition
follows, that the King is bound by no conditions or laws • and
that though resistance to the tyranny of the Stuarts might be
justifiable, resistance under the same circumstances to the
House of Brunswick, is not. This trial, for the cruelty and
infamy attending it, has been justly compared to the celebrated
one of Rosewell m the latter years of Charles II., to the events
of which those of 1792 exhibit, in various respects, a striking
and alarming parallel.
&
Before his election to the National Convention, Thomas Paine
�60
The House of Brunswick.
published the second part of his l< Rights of Man,” in which he
boldly promulgated principles which, though fiercely condemned
at the date of their issue, are now being gradually accepted by
the great mass of the people. Paine’s work was spread through
the kingdom with extraordinary industry, and was greedily sought
for by people of all classes. Despite the great risk of fine and
imprisonment, some of the most effective parts were printed on
pieces of paper, which were used by Republican tradesmen as
wrappers for their commodities. Proceedings were immediately
taken against Thomas Paine as author of the obnoxious book,
which was treated as a libel against the government and consti
tution, and on trial Paine was found guilty. He was defended
with great ability by Erskine, who, when he left the court, was
cheered by a crowd of people who had collected without, some of
whom took his horses from his carriage, and dragged him home
to his house in Serjeant’s Inn. The name and opinions of
Thomas Paine were at this moment gaining influence, in spite of
the exertions made to put them down. From this time for
several years, it is almost impossible to read a weekly journal
without finding some instance of persecution for publishing Mr.
Paine’s political views.
The trial of Thomas Paine was the commencement of a series
of State prosecutions, not for political offences, but for political
designs. The name of Paine had caused much apprehension,
but many even amongst the Conservatives dreaded the extension
of the practice of making the publication of a man’s abstract
opinions criminal, when unaccompanied with any direct or open
attempt to put them into effect. In the beginning of 1793,
followed prosecutions in Edinburgh, where the ministerial in
fluence was great, against men who had associated to do little
more than call for reform in Parliament; and five persons,
whose alleged crimes consisted chiefly in having read Paine’s
“ Rights of Man,” and in having expressed either a partial ap
probation of his doctrines, or a strong declaration in favour of
Parliamentary reform, were transported severally : Joseph
Gerrald, William Skirving, and Thomas Muir for fourteen, and
Thomas Fyshe Palmer and Maurice Margarot for seven years !
These men had been active in the political societies, and it was
imagined that, by an exemplary injustice of this kind, these
societies would be intimidated. Such, however, was not the
case, for, from this moment, the clubs in Edinburgh became
more active than ever, and they certainly took a more dangerous
character ; so that, before the end of the year, there was actually
a “ British Convention ” sitting in the Scottish capital. This
was dissolved by force at the beginning of 1794, and two of its
members were added to the convicts already destined for trans
portation. Their severe sentences provoked warm discussions
in the English Parliament, but the ministers were inexorable in
their resolution to put them in execution.
The extreme severity of the sentences passed on the Scottish
political martyrs, even as judged by those admitting the legality
�The House of Brunswick.
61
and justice of their conviction, was so shameful, as to rouse
general interest. Barbarous as the law of Scotland appeared
to be, it became a matter of doubt whether the Court of Justi
ciary had not exceeded its power, in substituting the punishment
of transportation for that of banishment, imposed by the Act of
Queen Anne, for the offence charged on those men.
In 1794, the debts of the Prince of Wales, then amounting to
about ,£650,000, not including the amounts due on the foreign
bonds, a marriage was suggested in order to give an excuse for
going to Parliament for a vote. This was at a time when the
Prince was living with Mrs. Fitzherbert as his wife, and when
Lady Jersey was his most prominent mistress. The bride selected
was Caroline of Brunswick. A poor woman for a wife, if Lord
Malmesbury’s picture is a true one, certainly in no sense a bad
woman. But her husband our Prince ! When she arrived in
London, George was not sober. His first words, after greeting
her, were to Lord Malmesbury, “ Get me a glass of brandy.”
Tipsy this Brunswicker went to the altar on 8th April, 1794 ; so
tipsy that he got up from his knees too soon, and the King had
to whisper him down, the Archbishop having halted in amaze in
the ceremony. Here there is no possibility of mistake. The
two Dukes who were his best men at the wedding, had their
work to keep him from falling; and to one, the Duke of Bedford,
he admitted that he had had several glasses of brandy before
coming to the chapel.
Thackeray says, “ What could be. expected from a wedding
which had such a beginning—from such a bridegroom and such
a bride ? Malmesbury gives us the beginning of the marriage
story—how the prince reeled into chapel to be married ; how he
hiccupped out his vows of fidelity—you know how he kept them ;
how he pursued the woman whom he had married ; to what a
state he brought her ; with what blows he struck her ; with what
malignity he pursued her ; what his treatment of his daughter
was ; and what his own life. He the first gentleman of Europe 1”
The Parliament not only paid the Prince of Wales’s debts, but
gave him ^28,000 for jewels and plate, and ,£26,000 for the
furnishing of Carlton House.
On the 12th of May, Mr. Henry Dundas brought down on
behalf of the government, a second message from the King, im
porting that seditious practices had been carried on by certain
societies in London, in correspondence with other societies ; that
they had lately been pursued with increasing activity and bold
ness, and had been avowedly directed to the assembling of a
pretended National Convention, in contempt and defiance of the
authority of Parliament, on principles subversive of the existing
laws and the constitution, and tending to introduce that system
of anarchy prevailing in France ; that his Majesty had given
orders for seizing the books and papers of those societies, which
were to be laid before the House, to whom it was recommended
to pursue measures necessary to counteract their pernicious ten
dency. A large collection of books and papers was, in conse
�62
The House of Brunswick.
quence, brought down to the House ; and, after an address had
been voted, a resolution was agreed to, that those papers should
be referred to a committee of secrecy. A few days after the
King’s message was delivered, the following persons were com
mitted to the Tower on a charge of high treason :—Mr. Thomas
Hardy, a shoemaker in Piccadilly, who officiated as secretary to
the London Corresponding Society ; Mr. Daniel Adams, secre
tary to the Society for Constitutional Information ; Mr. John
Horne Tooke ; Mr. Stewart Kyd ; Mr. Jeremiah Joyce, precep
tor to Lord Mahon, eldest son of the Earl of Stanhope ; and
Mr. John Thelwall, who had for some time delivered lectures on
political subjects in London.
Under the influence of excitement resulting from the Govern
ment statement of the discovery of a plot to assassinate the
King, and which plot never existed outside the brains of the
Government spies, a Special Commission of Oyer and Terminer
was issued on the ioth of September, 1794, for the trial of the
State prisoners confined in the Tower on a charge of high trea
son. On the 2nd of October, the Commission was opened at the
Sessions House, Clerkenwell, by Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in an
elaborate charge to the grand jury. Bills were then found against
all who had been taken up in May, except Daniel Adams.
Hardy was first put on his trial at the Old Bailey. The trial
commenced on the 28th of October, and continued with short
adjournments until the 5th of November. Mr Erskine was
•counsel for Hardy, and employed his great talents and brilliant
•eloquence with the most complete success. After consulting
together for thtee hours, the jury, who, though the avowed friends
•of the then administration, were men of impartiality,intelligence,
and of highly respectable characters, returned a verdict of N ot
Guilty. There has seldom been a verdict given in a British
-court of justice which afforded more general satisfaction. It is
doubtful whether there has been a verdict more important
in its consequences to the liberties of the English people. On
the 17th of November, John Horne Tooke was put on his trial.
The Duke of Richmond, Earl Camden, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Beaufoy, were subpoenaed by the prisoner ; and the examination of
William Pitt by Mr. Tooke and his counsel, formed the most
important feature in the trial, as the evidence of the Prime
Minister tended to prove, that from the year 1780 to 1782, he
himself had been actively engaged with Mr. Tooke and many
•others in measures of agitation to procure a Parliamentary re
form, although he now not only deemed the attempt dangerous
.and improper, but sought to condemn it as treasonable, or at
least as seditious. Mr. Erskine, who was counsel for Mr. Tooke
also, in a most eloquent and powerful manner contended that
the conduct of his client was directed only to the same object as
that previously sought by Pitt himself, and that the measures
resorted to, so far from being criminal, were perfectly constitu
tional. Mr. Pitt was extremely guarded in his replies, and pro
fessed very little recollection of what passed at the meetings
�The House of Brunswick.
63
which he attended. A letter he had written to Mr. Tooke at
that time on the subject, was handed to him, which he pretended
he could scarcely recognise, and which the judge would not
permit to be read. Mr. Sheridan, who was likewise engaged in
the agitation for political reform, and subpoenaed by Mr. Tooke,
gave unqualified evidence in favour of Mr. Tooke respecting the
proceedings at those meetings. The trial continued till the
Saturday following, when the jury were out of court only six
minutes, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty !
The opening of Parliament was looked forward to with great
anxiety, on account of the extreme distress under which the
country was labouring. As the time approached, popular meet
ings were held in the metropolis, and preparations were made
for an imposing demonstration. During the morning of the 29th
of October, the day on which the King was to open the session
in person, crowds of men continued pouring into the town from
the various open spaces outside, where simultaneous meetings
had been called by placards and advertisements ; and before
the King left Buckingham House, on his way to St. James’s, the
number of people collected on the ground over which he had to
pass is admitted in the papers of the day to have been not less,
than two hundred thousand. At first the state carriage was
allowed to move on through this dense mass in sullen silence,
no hats being taken off, nor any other mark of respect being
shown. This was followed by a general outburst of hisses and
groans, mingled with shouts of “ Give us peace and bread 1”
No war!” “No King !” “ Down with him ! down with George!”
and the like ; and this tumult continued unabated until the King
reached the House of Lords, the Guards with difficulty keeping
the mob from closing on the carriage. As it passed through
Margaret Street the populace seemed determined to attack it,
and when opposite the Ordnance Office a stone passed through
the glass of the carriage window. ' A verse published the follow
ing day says:—
“ Folks say it was lucky the stone missed the head,
When lately at Caesar ’twas thrown ;
I think very different from thousands indeed,
’Twas a lucky escape for the stone.”
The demonstration was, if anything, more fierce on the King’s
return, and he had some difficulty in reaching St. James’s Palace
without injury ; for the mob threw stones at the state carriage
and damaged it considerably. After remaining a short time at
St. James’s, he proceeded in his private coach to Buckingham
House, but the carriage was stopped in the Park by the popu
lace, who pressed round it, shouting, “ Bread, bread ! Peace,
peace !” until the King was rescued from this unpleasant situa
tion by a strong body of the Guards.
Treason and sedition Acts were hurried through Parliament
to repress the cries of the hungry for bread, whilst additional
taxes were imposed to make the poor poorer.
�64
The House of Brunswick.
That the terrible French war—of which it is impossible to
give any account in the limits of this essay, a war which cost
Great Britain at least ^1,000,000,000 in hard cash, without
reckoning the hundreds of thousands of killed, wounded, and
pauperised, and which Buckle calls 11 the most hateful, the most
unjust, and the most atrocious war England has ever waged
against any country ”—directly resulted from our government
under the Brunswick family, is a point on which it is impossible
for any one who has examined the facts, to have serious doubt.
Sir Archibald Alison tells us that early in 1791, “The King of
England took a vivid interest in the misfortunes of the Royal
Family of France, promising, as Elector of Hanover, to concur
in any measures which might be deemed necessary to extricate
them from their embarrassments ; and he sent Lord Elgin to
Leopold, who was then travelling in Italy, to concert measures
for the common object.” It was as Elector of Hanover also that
his grandfather, George II., had sacrificed English honour and
welfare to the personal interest and family connections of these
wretched Brunswicks.- It is certain too that after years of
terrible war, on one of the Occasions of negotiation for peace,
hindrances arose because our Government insisted on describing
George III., in the preliminaries, as “King of France.” The
French naturally said, first, your King George never has been
King of any part of France at any time ; and next, we, having
just declared France a Republic, cannot in a solemn treaty re
cognise the continued existence of a claim to Monarchy over us.
The following table, which we insert at this stage to save the
need for further reference, shows how the labour of the British
nation was burdened for generations to come, by the insane
affection of the House of Brunswick for the House of Bourbon :—
Years.
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
...
Taxes.
^17,656,418
17,170,400
17,308,411
17,858,454
18,737,760
20,654,650
30,202,915
35,229,968
33,896,464
35,415,296
37,240,213
37,677,063
45,359,442
49,659,281
53,3O4<254
58,390,255
61,538,207
63,405,294
66,681,366
Loans.
^25,926,526
—
51,705,698
56,945,566
25,350,000
35,624,250
21,875,300
29,045,000
44,816,250
41,489,438
16,000,000
18,200,000
39,543,124
29,880,000
18,373,200
13,693,254
21,278,122
19,811,108
29,244,711
�65
The House of Brunswick.
Years.
1812
1813
1814
1815
Taxes.
£64,763,870
63,169,845
66,925,835
69,684,192
Loans.
^40,743,031
54,780,324
63,645,930
70,888,402
£768,858,934
Total
■■ £981,929,853
After making some deductions on account of the operations of
the loyalty loan, and the transfer of annuities, the total debt con
tracted from 1793 to 1815, amounts to £762,537,445. If to this
sum be added the increase in the unfunded debt during that
period, and the additional sums raised by taxes in consequence
of hostilities, we shall have the total expenditure, owing to the
French war, as follows :—
Debt contracted from 1793 to 1815 • •• £762,537,445
50,194,060
Increase in the Unfunded Debt
614,488,459
War taxes
1,427,219,964
Total
Deduct sum paid to the Commissioners
for reduction of the National Debt ...
173,309,383
Total cost of the French war .............. £1,253,910,581
Lord Fife, in the House of Lords, said that “ in this horrid
war had he first witnessed the blood and treasure of the nation
expended in the extravagant folly of secret expeditions, which
had invariably proved either abortive or unsuccessful. Grievous
and heavy taxes had been laid on the people, and wasted in ex
pensive embassies, and in subsidising proud, treacherous, and
useless foreign princes.”
In 1795 King George and his advisers tried by statute to put
a stop for ever in this country to all political or religious discus
sion. No meeting was to be held, except on five days’ duly
advertised notice, to be signed by householders ; and if for lec
tures or debates, on special licence by a magistrate. Power was
given to any magistrate to put an end in his discretion to any
meeting, and to use military force in the event of twelve persons
remaining one hour after notice. If a man lent books, news
papers, or pamphlets without license, he might be fined twenty
pounds for every offence. If he permitted lectures or debates
on any subject whatever, he might be fined one hundred pounds
a day. And yet people dare to tell us that we owe our liberties
to these Brunswicks.
On the 1st of June, 1795, Gillray, in a caricature entitled
“ John Bull Ground Down,” had represented Pitt grinding John
Bull into money, which was flowing out in an immense stream
beneath the mill. The Prince of Wales is drawing off a large
portion, to pay the debts incurred by his extravagance ; while
Dundas, Burke, and Loughborough, as the representatives of
ministerial pensioners, are scrambling for the rest. King George
s
�I
66
The House of Brunswick.
encourages Pitt to grind without mercy. Another caricature by
Gillray, published on the 4th of June, represents Pitt as Death
on the White Horse (the horse of Hanover) riding over a drove
of pigs, the representatives of what Burke had termed the “ swi
nish multitude.”
On the 7th of January, 1796, the Princess Charlotte of Wales
was born, and on the 30th of April, George Prince of Wales
wrote to the Princess Caroline, stating that he did not intend to
live with her any more. The Prince had some time previously
sent by Lord Cholmondeley a verbal message to the same effect,
which, however, the Princess had refused to accept. The
. mistress reigning over the Prince of Wales at this time was
Lady Jersey.
No impeachment of the House of Brunswick would be even
tolerably supported which did not contain some reference to the
terrible misgovernment of Ireland under the rule of this obsti
nate and vicious family, and yet these few pages afford but little
space in which to show how beneficent the authority of King
George III. has proved to our Irish brethren.
During the war, when there were no troops in Ireland, and
when, under Flood and Grattan, the volunteers were in arms,
some concessions had been made to the Irish people. A few
obnoxious laws had been repealed, and promises had been held
out of some relaxation of the fearfully oppressive laws against
the Catholics. From the correspondence of Earl Temple, it is
clear that in 1782 not only was the King against any further
concession whatever, but that his Majesty and Lord Shelburne
actually manoeuvred to render the steps already taken as fruit
less as possible. We find W. W. Grenville admitting, on the
15th December, 1782, “that the [Irish] people are really miser
able and oppressed to a degree I had not at all conceived.” The
Government acted dishonestly to Ireland. The consequence
was, continued misery and disaffection ; and I assert, without
fear of contradiction, that this state of things is directly trace
able to the King’s wilfulness on Irish affairs. As an illustration
of the character of the Government, it is worth notice that Lord
Temple, when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote to his brother
in cipher, because his letters were opened in the Post Office by
Lord Shelburne. The Parliament of Ireland was in great part
owned by absentee peers, and each change of Lord-Lieutenancy
was marked by heavy addition to the Pension List. The con
tinuance of the Catholic disabilities rendered permanent quiet
impossible. Three-fourths of the nation were legally and socially
almost outlawed. The national discontent was excited by the
arbitrary conduct of the authorities, and hopes of successful
revolution were encouraged, after 1789, by the progress of the
Revolution in France.
About 1790, the “United Irishmen ” first began to be heard
of. Their object was “a complete reform in the legislature,
founded on the principles of civil, political, and religious liberty.”'
The clubs soon became secret associations, and were naturally
�The House of Brunswick.
67
soon betrayed. Prosecutions for sedition in 1793 were soon
followed by military repression.
Lord Moira in the House of Lords in 1797, in a powerful
speech, which has remained without any refutation, described
the Government of Ireland as “ the most absurd, as well as the
most disgusting, tyranny that any nation ever groaned under.”
He said : “ If such a tyranny be persevered in, the consequence
must inevitably be the deepest and most universal discontent,
and even hatred to the English name. I have seen in that
country a marked distinction made between the English and
Irish. I have seen troops that have been sent full of this preju
dice—that every inhabitant in that kingdom is a rebel to the
British Govenment. I have seen the most wanton insults prac
tised upon men of all ranks and conditions. I have seen the most
grievous oppressions exercised, in consequence of a presumption
that the person who was the unfortunate object of such oppres
sion was in hostility to the Government ; and yet that has been
done in a part of the country as quiet and as free from disturb
ance as the city of London.” His Lordship then observed that,
“ from education and early habits, the curfew vr&s, ever con
sidered by Britons as a badge of slavery and oppression. It was
then practised in Ireland with brutal rigour. He had known an
instance where the master of a house had in vain pleaded to be
allowed the use of a candle, to enable the mother to administer
relief to her daughter struggling in convulsive fits. In former
times, it had been the custom for Englishmen to hold the in
famous proceedings of the Inquisition in detestation. One of
the greatest horrors with which it was attended was that the
person, ignorant of the crime laid to his charge, or of his accuser,
was torn from his family, immured in a prison, and kept in the
most cruel uncertainty as to the period of his confinement, or
the fate which awaited him. To this injustice, abhorred by Pro
testants in the practice of the Inquisition, were the people of
Ireland exposed. All confidence, all security, were taken away.
When a man was taken up on suspicion he was put to the tor
ture ; nay, if he were merely accused of concealing the guilt of
another. The rack, indeed, was not at hand ; but the punish
ment of picqueting was in practice, which had been for some
years abolished as too inhuman, even in the dragoon service.
He had known a man, in order to extort a confession of a sup
posed crime, or of that of some of his neighbours, picqueted till
he actually fainted—picqueted a second time till he fainted
again, and as soon as he came to himself, picqueted a third time
till he once more fainted ; and all upon mere suspicion ! Nor
was this the only species of torture. Men had been taken and
hung up till they were half dead, and then threatened with a
repetition of the cruel treatment, unless they made confession
of the imputed guilt. These were not particular acts of
cruelty, exercised by men abusing the power committed
to them, but they formed part of our system. They were
notorious, and no petson could say who would be the
�68
The House of Brunswick.
next victim of this oppression and cruelty, which he saw
others endure. This, however, was not all; their lord
ships, no doubt, would recollect the famous proclamation issued
by a military commander in Ireland, requiring the people
to give up their arms. It never was denied that this proclama
tion was illegal, though defended on some supposed necessity ;
but it was not surprising that some reluctance had been shown
to comply with it by men who conceived the Constitution gave
them a right to keep arms in their houses fortheir own defence ;
and they could not but feel indignation in being called upon to
give up their right. In the execution of the order the greatest
cruelties had been committed. If anyone was suspected to have
concealed weapons of defence, his house, his furniture, and all
his property were burnt; but this was not all. If it were sup
posed that any district had not surrendered all the arms which
it contained, a party was sent out to collect the number at which
it was rated; and in execution of this order, thirty houses were
sometimes burnt down in a single night. Officers took upon
themselves to decide discretionary the quantity of arms ; and
upon their opinions the fatal consequences followed. These
facts were well known in Ireland, but they could not be made
public through the channel of the newspapers, for fear of that
summary mode of punishment which had been practised towards
the Northern Star, when a party of troops in open day, and in
a town where the General’s headquarters were, went and de
stroyed all the offices and property belonging to that paper. It
was thus authenticated accounts were suppressed.”
Can any one wonder that the ineffectual attempt at revolution
of 1798 followed such a state of things ? And when, in the
London Chronicle and Cambridge Intelligencer, and other jour
nals by no means favourable to Ireland or its people, we read
the horrid stories of women ravished, men tortured, and farms
pillaged, all in the name of law and order, and this by King
George’s soldiers, not more than seventy years ago, can we feel
astonishment that the Wexford peasants have grown up to hate
the Saxon oppressor ? And this we owe to a family of kings
who used their pretended Protestantism as a cloak for the illtreatment of our Catholic brethren in Ireland. In impeaching
the Brunswicks, we remind the people of proclamations of
ficially issued in the King’s name, threatening to burn and de
vastate whole parishes, and we allege that the disaffection in
Ireland at the present moment, is the natural fruit of the utter
regardlessness, on the part of these Guelphs, for human liberty,
or happiness, or life. The grossest excesses were perpetrated in
Ireland by King George II I.’s foreign auxiliaries. The troops
from Hesse Cassel, from Hesse Darmstadt, and from Hanover,
earned an unenviable notoriety by their cruelty, rapacity, and
licentiousness. And these we owe entirely to the Brunswicks.
A letter from the War Office, dated April nth, 1798, shows
how foreigners were specially selected for the regiments sent
over to Ireland. Sir Ralph Abercromby publicly rebuked the
�The House of Brunswick.
69
King’s army, of which he was the Commander-in-Chief, for their
disgraceful irregularities and licentiousness. Even LieutenantGeneral Lake admits that “ the determination of the troops to
destroy every one they think a rebel is beyond description, and
needs correction.”
In 1801, it was announced that King George III. was suffering
from severe cold and sore throat, and could not therefore go out
in public. His disease, however, was more mental than bodily.
Her present Majesty has also suffered from severe cold and sore
throat, but no allegation is ventured that her mental condition
is such as to unfit her for her Royal duties.
On March 29, 1802, the sum of .£990,053 was voted for pay
ment of the King’s debts.
In 1803, the Prince of Wales being again in debt, a further
vote was passed of ,£60,000 a year for three years and a half.
Endeavours were made to increase this grant, but marvellous to
relate, the House of Commons actually acted as if it had some
slight interest in the welfare of the people, and rejected a motion
of Mr. Calcraft for a further vote of money to enable his Royal
Highness to maintain his state and dignity. The real effect of
the vote actually carried, was to provide for ,£800,649 of the
Prince’s debts, including the vote of 1794.
On July 21, 1763, ,£60,000 cash, and a pension of ,£16,000 a
year, were voted to the Prince of Orange.
In 1804, King George was very mad, but Mr. Addington ex
plained to Parliament, that there was nothing in his Majesty’s
indisposition to prevent his discharging the Royal functions.
Mr. Gladstone also recently explained to Parliament, that there
would be no delay in the prorogation of Parliament in conse
quence of her gracious Majesty’s indisposition and absence.
In 1805, the House of Commons directed the criminal prose
cution of Lord Melville, for corrupt conduct and embezzlement of
public money, as first Lord of the Admiralty. For this, how
ever, impeachment was substituted, and on his trial before the
House of Peers, he was acquitted, as out of 136 peers, only 59
said that they thought him guilty, although he had admitted the
misapplication of ,£10,000.
On the 29th of March, 1806, a warrant was signed by King
George III., directed to Lord Chancellor Erskine, to Lord
Grenville, the Prime Minister, to Lord Ellenborough, then Lord
Chief Justice of England, and to Earl Spencer, commanding
them to inquire into the conduct of Her Royal Highness the
Princess of Wales. Before these Lords, Charlotte Lady Douglas
swore that she had visited the Princess, who confessed to having
committed adultery, saying “ that she got a bedfellow whenever
she could, that nothing was more wholesome.” Lady Douglas
further swore to the Princess’s pregnancy, and evidence was
given to prove that she had been delivered of a male child. The
whole of this evidence was found to be perjury, and Lady Douglas
was recommended for prosecution. The only person to be benefitted was George Prince of Wales, who desired to be divorced
�70
The House of Brunswick.
from his wife, and it is alleged that he suborned these witnesses
to commit perjury against her. At this time the Prince of Wales
himself had just added Lady Hertford to the almost intermin
able muster-roll of his loves, and was mixed up in a still more
strange and disgraceful transaction, in which he used his per
sonal influence to canvass Peers—sitting as the highest law court
in the realm—-in order to induce them to vote the guardianship
of Miss Seymour, a niece of Lady Hertford, to Mrs. Fitzherbert.
Spencer Perceval, who acted for the Princess of Wales, being
about to publish the whole of the proceedings of the Royal Com
missioners, with the evidence and their verdict, his book was
quietly suppressed, and he received a reward—a post in the
Cabinet. It is said that Ceorge III. directed the report of the
Commissioners to be destroyed, and every trace of the whole
affair to be buried in oblivion.
For some years rumours had been current of corruption in
the administration of military promotion under the Duke of
York, just as for some time past rumours have been current of
abuse of patronage under his Royal Highness the present Duke
of Cambridge. A Major Hogan, in 1808, published a declara
tion that he had lost his promotion because he had refused to
give the sum of ^600 to the Duke of York’s “ Venus.”
On the 27th January, 1809, Colonel Wardle—who is said to
have been prompted to the course by his Royal Highness the
Duke of Kent—rose in his place in the House of Commons,
and formally charged his Royal Highness Frederick Duke of
York with corruption in the administration of army patronage.
It is difficult to determine how far credit should be given to
the statements of Mrs. Clarke, who positively alleges that she
was bribed to betray the Duke of York by his brother, the
Duke of Kent, the father of her present Majesty. It is quite
certain that Major Dodd, the private secretary of the Duke of
Kent, was most active in collecting and marshalling the evi
dence in support of the various charges made in the Commons
against the Duke of York. The Duke of Kent, however, after
the whole business was over, formally and officially denied that
he was directly or indirectly mixed up in the business. It is
clear that much bitter feeling had for some time existed between
the Dukes of York and Kent. In a pamphlet published about
that time, we find the following remarkable passages relating to
the Duke of Kent’s removal from his military command at Gib
raltar :—“ It is, however, certain that the creatures whom we
could name, and who are most in his [the Duke of York’s] con
fidence, were, to a man, instructed and industriously employed
in traducing the character and well-merited fame of the Duke
of Kent, by misrepresenting his conduct with all the baseness
of well-trained sycophants. Moreover, we need not hesitate
in saying that this efficient Commander-in-Chief, contrary to the
real sentiments of his Majesty, made use of his truly dangerous
and undue influence with the confidential servants of the Crown
to get his brother recalled from the Government of Gibraltar,
�The House of Brunswick.
71
under a disingenuous pretext, and at the risk of promoting sedi
tion in the army.”
In another pamphlet, dated 1808, apparently printed on behalf
of the Duke of Kent, we find it suggested that the Duke of
York had used Sir Hew Dalrymple as a spy on his brothei' the
Duke of Kent at Gibraltar. Whether the Duke of York slan
dered the Duke of Kent, and whether the Queen's father re
venged himself by getting up the case for Colonel Wardle, others
must decide. The following extracts from this gentleman’s
address to the House of Commons, are sufficient to put the
material points before our readers :—
“ In the year 1803, his Royal Highness the Commander-inChief took a handsome house, set up a full retinue of servants
and horses, and also a lady of the name of Clarke. Captain
Tonyn, of the 48th Regiment, was introduced by Captain Sandon, of the Royal Waggon Train, to this Mrs. Clarke, and it was
agreed that, upon his being promoted to the majority of the 31st
Regiment, he should pay her ^500. The ^500 lodged, with Mr.
Donovan by Captain Sandon, was paid by him to Mrs. Clarke.
The difference between a company and a majority is ^1100 ;
this lady received only ^500, while the half-pay fund lost the
whole sum, for the purpose of putting ^500 into the pocket of
Mrs. Clarke. This ^500 was paid by Mrs. Clarke to Mr. Per
kins, a silversmith, in part payment for a service of plate ; that
the Commander-in-Chief made good the remainder, and that the
goods were sent to his house in Gloucester Place. From this I
infer, first, that Mrs. Clarke possesses the power of military pro
motion ; secondly, that she received a pecuniary consideration
for such promotion ; and thirdly, that the Commander-in-Chief
was a partaker in the benefit arising from such transactions. In
this case, there are no less than five different persons as wit
nesses—viz., Major Tonyn, Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Donovan, Captain
Sandon, and the executor of Mr. Perkins, the silversmith.
“The next instance is of Lieutenant Colebrooke, of the 56th
Regiment. It was agreed that Mrs. Clarke should receive /200
upon Lieutenant Colebrooke’s name appearing in the Gazette for
promotion. At that moment, this lady was anxious to go on an
excursion into the country, and she stated to his Royal High
ness that she had an opportunity of getting ^200 to defray the
expenses of it, without applying to him. This was stated upon
a Thursday, and on the Saturday following this officer’s name
appeared in the Gazette, and he was accordingly promoted; upon
which Mr. Tuck waited on the lady and paid her the money. To
this transaction the witnesses are Lieutenant Colebrooke, Mr
Tuck, and Mrs. Clarke.”
After instancing further cases, Colonel Wardle stated that :—
“ At this very hour there is a public office in the city where
commissions are still offered at the reduced prices which Mrs.
Clarke chooses to exact for them. The agents there have de
clared to me that they are now employed by the present favourite,
Mrs. Carey. They have not only declared this as relative to
�72
The House of Brunswick.
military commissions, but they have carried it much farther;
for, in addition to commissions in the army, places of all desscriptions, both in Church and State, are transacted at their
office ; and these agents do not hesitate to give it under their
own hands, that they are employed by many of the first officers
in his Majesty’s service.”
On the examination of witnesses, and general inquiry, which
lasted seven weeks, the evidence was overwhelming, but the
Duke of York having written a letter, pledging his honour as a
Prince that he was innocent, was acquitted, although at least
112 Members of Parliament voted for a verdict of condemna
tion. In the course of the debate, Lord Temple said that “he
found the Duke of York deeply criminal in allowing this woman
to interfere in his official duties. The evidence brought forward
by accident furnished convincing proofs of this crime. It was
evident in French’s levy. It was evident in the case of Dr.
O’Meara, this minister of purity, this mirror of virtue, who, pro
fessing a call from God, could so far debase himself, so far abuse
his sacred vocation, as to solicit a recommendation from such a
person as Mrs. Clarke, by which, with an eye to a bishopric,
he obtained an opportunity of preaching before the King. What
could be said in justification of his Royal Highness for allowing
this hypocrite to come down to Weymouth under a patronage,
unbecoming his duty, rank, and situation ?”
Mr. Tierney—in reply to a taunt of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that Colonel Wardle had been tutored by “ cooler
heads ”—said : “ He would state that the Duke of York had got
his letter drawn up by weaker heads ; he would, indeed, add
something worse, if it were not unparliamentary to express it.
The Duke of York was, he was persuaded, too manly to sub
scribe that letter, if he were aware of the base, unworthy, and
mean purposes to which it was to be applied. It was easy to
conceive that his Royal Highness would have been prompt to
declare his innocence upon a vital point ; but why declare it
upon the 1 honour of a Prince,’ for the thing had no meaning ?”
Mr. Lyttleton declared that “ if it were in the power of the
House to send down to posterity the character of the Duke of
York unsullied—if their proceedings did not extend beyond
their journals, he should be almost inclined to concur in the
vote of acquittal, even in opposition to his sense of duty. But
though the House should acquit his Royal Highness, the proofs
would still remain, and the public opinion would be guided by
them, and not by the decision of the House. It was in the
power of the House to save its own character, but not that of
the Commander-in-Chief.”
It is alleged that the Queen herself by no means stood with
clean hands ; that in connection with Lady Jersey and a Doctor
Randolph, her Majesty realised an enormous sum by the sale of
cadetships for the East Indies.
On the 31st May, 1810, London was startled by the narrative
of a terrible tragedy. His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus,
�The House of Brunswick.
73
Duke of Cumberland, afterwards King of Hanover, and who,
while King of Hanover, drew ,£24,000 a year from the pockets
of English taxpayers, was wounded in his own room in the dead
of the night, by some man whom he did not see, although the
room was lighted by a lamp, although his Royal Highness saw
“a letter” which lay on a night tableland which letter was
“covered with blood.” The wounds are said to have been
sword wounds inflicted with an intent to assassinate, by Joseph
Sellis, a valet of the Duke, who is also said to have immediately
afterwards committed suicide by cutting his own throat. General
Sir B. Stephenson, who saw the body of Sellis, but who was
not examined at the inquest, swore that “ the head was nearly
severed from the body.” Sellis’s cravat had been cut through
and taken off his neck. Sir Everard Home and Sir Henry
Halford were the physicians present at St. James’s Palace the
day of this tragedy, and two surgeons were present at the in
quest, but no 'medical or surgical evidence was taken as to
whether or not the death of Sellis was the result of suicide or
murder; but a cheesemonger was called to prove that twelve
years before he had heard Sellis say, “ Damn the King and the
Royal Family and a maid servant was called to prove that
fourteen years before Sellis had said, “ Damn the Almighty.”
Despite this conclusive evidence, many horrible rumours were
current, which, at the time, were left uncontradicted ; but on
the 17th April, 1832, his Hoyal Highness the Duke of Cumber
land made an affidavit in which he swore that he had not mur
dered Sellis himself, and that “ in case the said person named
Sellis did not die by his own hands,” then that he, the Duke,
was not any way, in any manner, privy or accessory to his
death.” His Royal Highness also swore that “ he never did com
mit, nor had any intention of committing, the detestable crime,”
which it had been pretended Sellis had discovered the Duke in
the act of committing. This of course entirely clears the Queen’s
uncle from all suspicion. Daniel O’Connell, indeed, described
him as “ the mighty great liarbut with the general character for
truthfulness of the family, it would be in the highest degree im
proper to suggest even the semblance of a doubt. It was proved
upon the inquest that Seliis was a sober, quiet man, in the
habit of daily shaving the Duke, and that he had never exhibited
any suicidal or homicidal tendencies. It therefore appears that
he tried to wound or kill his Royal Highness without any motive,
and under circumstances in which he knew discovery was inevit
able, and that he then killed himself with a razor, cutting his
head almost off his body, severing it to the bone. When
Matthew Henry Graslin first saw the body, he “ told them all
that Sellis had been murdered,” and although he was cafed on
the inquest, he does not say one word as to the condition of
Sellis’s body, or as to whether or not he believes it to have been
a suicide. Of all the persons who saw the body of Sellis, and
they appear to be many, only one, a sergeant in the Coldstreams,
gave the slightest evidence as to the state in which the body was
H
�74
The House of Brunswick.
found, and no description whatever was given on the inquest, of
the nature of the fearful wound which had nearly severed Sellis’s
head from his body ; nor, although it was afterwards proved by
sworn evidence that Sellis’s cravat “was cut through the whole
of the folds, and the inside fold was tinged with blood,” was any
evidence offered as to this on the inquest, although it shows that
Sellis must have first tried to cut his throat through his cravat,
and that having partially but ineffectively cut his throat, he then
took off his cravat and gave himself with tremendous force the
gash which caused his death. It is said that the razor with which
Sellis killed himself was found two feet from the bed, and on
the left-hand side ; but although it was stated that Sellis was a
left-handed man, no evidence was offered of this, and on the
contrary, the bloody hand marks, said to have been made by
Sellis on the doors, were all on the right-hand. It is a great
nuisance when people you are mixed up with commit suicide.
Undoubtedly, Sellis must have killed himself. The journals tell
us how Lord Graves killed himself long years afterward. The
Duke of Cumberland and Lady Graves, the widow, rode out
together very shortly after the suicide.
In the Rev. Erskine Neale’s Life of the Duke of Kent it is
stated that a surgeon of note, who saw Sellis after his death,
declared that there were several wounds on the back of the
neck which it was physically impossible Sellis could have
self-inflicted. In a lecture to his pupils the surgeon repeated
this in strong language, declaring that “no man can behead
himself.”
The madness of George III. having become too violent and
too continual to permit it to be any longer hidden from the
people, the Prince of Wales was, in 1811, declared Regent, with
limited powers, and ^70,000 a year additional was voted for
the Regent’s expenses, and a further 10,000 a year also granted
to the Queen as custodian of her husband. The grant to the
Queen was the more outrageous, as her great wealth and
miserly conduct were well known. When the Regent was first
appointed, he authorised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
declare officially to the House of Commons, that he woulcj
not add to the burdens of the nation ; and yet, in 1812, the
allowance voted was made retrospective, so as to include every
hour of his office.
In the discussion in Parliament on the proposed Regency,
it appeared that the people had been for a considerable period
utterly deceived on the subject of the King’s illness ; and that
although his Majesty had been for some time blind, deaf, and
delirious, the Ministry representing the King to be competent,
had dared to carry on the Government whilst George III.
was in every sense incapacitated. It is worthy of notice th'at
the Right Honourable Benjamin Disraeli, the leader of the
great Conservative party in this country, publicly declared on
September 26th, 1871, that her present Majesty, Queen Victoria,
was both “ physically and morally ” incapable of performing her
�The House of Brunswick.
75
regal functions. One advantage of having the telegraph wires
in the hands of Government is shown by the fact that all the
telegraphic summaries omitted the most momentous words of
Mr. Disraeli’s speech. During the debate in the session of
1811, it was shown that when the King was mad in the month
of March, 1804, he had on the 4th been represented by Lord
Eldon as if he had given his assent to a Bill granting certain
lands to the Duke of York, and on the 9th as if he had signed a
commission.
Earl Grey stated that it was notorious that on two occasions
the Great Seal had been employed as if by his Majesty’s com
mand, while he was insane. The noble earl also declared that
in 1801, the King was mad for some weeks, and yet during that
time councils were held, members sworn to it, and acts done re
quiring the King’s sanction. Sir Francis Burdett said, “ that to
have a person at the head of affairs who had long been incapable
of signing his name to a document without some one to guide
his hand ; a person long incapable of receiving petitions, of even
holding a levee, or discharging the most ordinary functions of
his office, and now afflicted with this mental malady, was a most
mischievous example to the people of this country, while it had
a tendency to expose the Government to the contempt of foreign
nations.”
One of the earliest acts of the Prince Regent was to reappoint
his brother, the Duke of York, to the office of Commander-inChief. A motion was proposed by Lord Milton, in the House
of Commons, declaring this appointment to be “highly improper
and indecorous.” The Ministry were, however, sufficiently
powerful to negative this resolution by a large majority. Though
his Royal Highness had resigned his high office when assailed
with charges of the grossest corruption, he was permitted to re
sume the command of the army without even a protest, save
from a minority of the House of Commons, and from a few of the
unrepresented masses. The chief mistress of the Prince Regent
at this time was the Marchioness of Hertford ; and the Courier,
then the ministerial journal, had the cool impudence to speak of
her as “Britain’s guardian angel,” because her influence had
been used to hinder the carrying any measure for the relief of the
Irish Catholics. Amongst the early measures under the Regency,
was the issue in Ireland of a circular letter addressed to the
Sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants of the counties, forbidding the
meetings of Catholics, and threatening all Catholic committees
with arrest and imprisonment. This, however, was so grossly
illegal, that it had shortly after to be abandoned, a Protestant
jury having refused to convict the first prisoners brought to
trial. It is curious to read the arguments against Catholic Eman
cipation pleaded in the Courier, one being that during the whole
of his reign, George III. “ is known to have felt the most con
scientious and irrevocable objections ” to any such measure of
justice to his unfortunate Irish subjects.
In 1812 we had much poverty in England ; and though this
�76
The House of Brunswick.
was not dealt with by Parliament, £^100,000 was granted to Lord
Wellington, and ,£200,000 voted for Russian sufferers by the
French war. We had a few months previously voted .£100,000
for the relief of the Portuguese against the French. On a
message from the Prince Regent, annuities of £3,000 each were
also granted to the four Princesses, exclusive of ,£4,000 from
the Civil List. The message from the Prince Regent for the
relief of the “Russian sufferers” was brought down on the
17th of December; and it is a curious fact that while Lord
Castlereagh and Lord Liverpool were eulogising the Russians
for their “heroic patriotism” in burning Moscow, the Rus
sians themselves were declaring in the St. Petersburgh Gazette
that the deed was actually committed by “the impious French,”
on whose heads the Gazette invoked the vengeance of God.
In 1812, the Prince Regent gave a sinecure office, that of
Paymaster of Widows’ Pensions, to his “ confidential servant,”
Colonel Macmahon. The nature of the sort of private services
which had been for some years performed by this gallant
colonel for this virtuous Prince may be better guessed than
described. Mr. Henry Brougham declared the appointment to
be an insult to Parliament. It was vigorously attacked indoors
and out of doors, and in obedience to the voice of popular
opinion the Commons voted the immediate abolition of the
office. To recompense Colonel Macmahon for the loss of his
place, he was immediately appointed Keeper of the Privy Purse
and Private Secretary to the Prince Regent. This appoint
ment was also severely criticised; and although the Govern
ment were sufficiently powerful to defeat the attack in the
Commons, they were yet compelled, by the strong protest made
by the public against such an improper appointment, to nomi
nally transfer the salary to the Regent’s privy purse. The trans
fer was not real, as, the Civil List being always in debt, the
nation had in fact ultimately to pay the money.
In 1813, foreign subsidies to the amount of ,£ 11,000,000, and
100,000 stand of arms, were voted by the English Parliament.
Out of the above, Portugal received £,2,000,000, Sicily ,£400,000,
Spain £3,000,000, Sweden £3,000,000, Russia and Prussia
£3,000,000, Austria £3,000,000, besides stores sent to Germany
to the amount of £3,000,000 more.
This year his Royal Highness the Prince Regent went to
Ascot races, where he was publicly dunned by a Mr. Vauxhall
Clarke for a betting debt incurred some years before, and left
unpaid.
Great excitement was created in and out of Parliament by
the complaint of the Princess of Wales that she was not allowed
to see her daughter, the Princess Charlotte. The Prince Re
gent formally declared, through the Speaker of the House of
Commons, that he would not meet, on any occasion, public or
private, the Princess of Wales (whom it was urged that “ he had
been forced to marry ”) ; while the Princess of Wales wrote a
formal letter to Parliament complaining that her character
�The House of Brunswick.
77
had been “traduced by suborned perjury.” Princess Char
lotte refused to be presented at Court except by her mother
who was not allowed to go there. In the House of Commons’
Mr. Whitbread charged the Lords Commissioners with unduly
straining the evidence, by leading questions ; and Lord Ellenborough, in his place in the House of Peers, declared that the
accusation was “ as false as hell.” Ultimately, it was admitted
that the grave charges against the Princess of Wales were
groundless, and ^35,000 a year was voted to her, she agree
ing to travel abroad. Mr. Bathurst, a sinecurist pensioner,
pleading on behalf of the Prince Regent that the House of
Commons ought not to interfere, urged that it was no unusual
thing to have dissensions in the Royal Family, and that they
had been frequent in the reigns of George I. and George II.
Mr. Stuart Wortley, in the course of a severe speech in reply
to Lord Castlereagh, declared that “we had a Royal Family
which took no warning from what was said or thought about
them, and seemed to be the only persons in the country who
were wholly regardless of their own welfare and respectability.”
The Princess Charlotte of Wales was at this time residing in
Warwick House, and some curiosity was aroused by the dis
missal, by order of the Prince Regent, of all her servants. This
was immediately followed by the flight of the Princess from the
custody of her father to the residence of her mother, the Princess
of Wales. Persuaded to return to the Prince Regent by her
mother, Lord Eldon, and others, she appears to have been
really detained as a sort of prisoner, for we find the Duke of
Sussex soon after complaining in the House of Lords that he
was unable to obtain access to the Princess, and asking by
whose authority she was kept in durance. Happy family these
Brunswicks.
In 1814, ^100,000 further was voted to the Duke of Wellington
together with an annuity of ,£10,000 a year, to be at any time
commuted for ,£300,000. The income of the Duke of Wellington
from places, pensions, and grants, amounted to an enormous
sum. At present we pay his heir ,£4000 a year for having in
herited his father’s riches.
th® year i^i4j .£118,857 was voted for payment of the
Civil List debts.
The Emperor of Russia and King of Prussia, after the resto.ratmn of Louis XVIII., visited the Prince Regent in this country,
when the following squib was published :—
“ There be princes three,
Two of them come from a far countrie,
And for valour and prudence their names shall be
Enrolled in the annals of glorie.
The third is said at a bottle to be
More than a match for his whole armie,
And fonder of fur caps and fripperie
Than any recorded in storie.
�78
The House of Brunswick.
Those from the North great warriors be,
And warriors have in their companie,
But he of the South must stare to see
Himself in such goodly companie.
For to say what his usual consorts be,
Would make but a pitiful storie.”
On the 12th of August, 1814, the Princess of Wales quitted
England, and it is alleged that on the evening prior to her de
parture, the Prince Regent, having as usual drunk much wine,
proposed a toast, “To the Princess of Wales damnation, and
may she never return to England.” Whether this story, which
Dr. Doran repeats, be true or false, it is certain that the Prince
Regent hated his wife with a thoroughly merciless hatred. When
the death of Napoleon was known in England, a gentleman,
thinking to gain favour with George IV., said, “ Your Majesty’s
bitterest enemy is dead.” The “first gentleman of Europe”
thought only of his wife, and replied, “ Is she, by God !”
The highly esteemed and virtuous Duke of Cumberland was
married at Berlin to the Princess of Salms, a widow who had
been twice married, once betrothed, and once divorced. The
lady was niece to the Oueen of England, who refused to receive
her publicly or privately. On this refusal being known, a letter
was published in the newspapers, written and signed by the
Queen herself, to her brother the Duke of Mecklenburgh-Strelitz,
the father of the bride, in which letter the Queen gave assurances
of a kind reception to the bride on her arrival in England. The
Queen’s friends replied that the Queen’s letter was only written to
be shown to the German Courts on the condition that the Duchess
should not come to England. Curious notions of truth and
honour seem current among these Brunswicks.
On the 27th of June, the Lords, on a message from the Prince
Regent, voted an additional allowance of £6,000 a year to the
Duke of Cumberland in consequence of the marriage. In the
House of Commons, after a series of very warm debates, in which
Lord Castlereagh objected to answer “ any interrogatories tend
ing to vilify the Royal Family,” the House ultimately refused to
grant the allowance by 126 votes against 125.
One historian says : “ The demeanour of the Duchess of
Cumberland in this country has been, to say the least, unobtru
sive and unimpeached; but it must be confessed that a disastrous
fatality—something inauspicious and indescribable—attaches to
the Prince, her husband.”
This year ,£200,000 further was voted to the Duke of Welling
ton, for the purchase of an estate, although it appeared from one
Member of Parliament’s speech that the vote should rather have
been to the Prince Regent. “Who,” he asked, “ had rendered
the army efficient ? The Prince Regent—by restoring the Duke
of York to the Horse Guards. Who had gained the Battle of
Waterloo ? The Prince Regent—by giving the command of the
army to the Duke of Wellington 1! ” The Prince Regent him
�The House of Bruhswick.
79
self had even a stronger opinion on the matter. Thackeray says:
“ I believe it is certain about George IV. that he had heard so
much of the war, knighted so many people, and worn such a
prodigious quantity of marshal’s uniforms, cocked hats, cocks’
feathers, scarlet and bullion in general, that he actually fancied
he had been present at some campaigns, and under the name of
General Brock led a tremendous charge of the German legion at
Waterloo.”
In 1816, Prince Leopold of Coburg Saalfeld, a very petty Ger
man Prince, without estate or position, married the Princess
Charlotte of Wales as if he were a Protestant, although he most
certainly on other occasions acted as if he belonged to the
Catholic Church. A grant of £60,000 a year was made to the
royal couple; ,£60,000 was given for the wedding outfit, and
£50,000 secured to Prince Leopold for life, in the event of his
surviving the Princess. And although this was done, it was well
known to the Prince Regent and the members of the Govern
ment, that on the 2nd January of the previous year, a marriage
ceremony, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church,
had been performed, by which the Prince Leopold was united to
the Countess of Cohaky. Bigamy appears to be a fashionable
vice, and one to which these Brunswicks never raise any objec
tion.
On the 9th December, the City of London presented an
address to the Prince Regent, in which they complained of
immense subsidies to foreign powers to defend their own
territories, or to commit aggressions on those of their neigh-,
hours,” “ of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force
in time of peace, of the unexampled and increasing magnitude
of the Civil List, of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pen
sions and sinecures, and of a long course of the most lavish and
improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every
branch of the Government.” This address appears to have
deeply wounded the Regent, and the expressions of stern rebuke
he used in replying, coupled with a rude sulkiness of manner,
were ungracious and unwarrantable. He emphasised his answer
with pauses and frowns, and turned on his heel as soon as he
had delivered it. And yet at this moment hundreds of thousands
m England were starving. Kind monarchs these Brunswicks.
Early in 1817, the general distress experienced in all parts
of England, and which had been for some time on the increase,
was of a most severe character. Meetings in London, and the
provinces grew frequent, and were most numerously attended,
and on February 3rd, in consequence of a message from the
Prince Regent, Committees of Secrecy were appointed by the
Lords and Commons, to inquire into the character of the various
movements. The Government was weak and corrupt, but the
people lacked large-minded leaders, and the wide-spread discon
tent of the masses of the population rendered sqme of their
number easy victims to the police spies who manufactured
political plots.
�80
The House of Brunswick.
On the 6th of November, 1817, Princess Charlotte of Wales
died. Complaints were raised that the Princess had not been
fairly treated, and some excitement was created by the fact that
Sir Richard Croft, the doctor who attended her, soon after com
mitted suicide, and that the public and the reporters were not
allowed to be present at the inquest. No notice whatever of the
Princess’s death was forwarded to her mother, the Princess of
Wales. In a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, Mr. Wynn
speaks of this as “ the most brutal omission I ever remember,
and one which would attach disgrace in private life.” At this
very time a large sum of money was being wasted in the employ
ment of persons to watch the Princess of Wales on her foreign
travels. In her correspondence we find the Princess complain
ing that her letters were opened and read, and that she was sur
rounded with spies. From the moment that George III. was
declared incurable, and his death approaching, there seems little
doubt that desperate means were resorted to to manufacture
evidence against the Princess to warrant a divorce.
On July 13th, 1818, his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence
married Adelaide, Princess of Saxe Meiningen, and his Royal
Highness the Duke of Kent married Her Serene Highness
Victoria, Princess of Leiningen. The Duke of Clarence, of
course, had voted to him an additional allowance of ,£6,000 a
year on entering the married state, although he was already re
ceiving from the country more than ,£21,000 a year in cash, and
a house rent free. It is highly edifying to read that during the
debates in Parliament, and when some objection was raised to
the extra sums proposed to be voted to one of the Royal Dukes,
Mr. Canning pleaded as a reason for the payment, that his Royal
Highness was not marrying “ for his own private gratification,but
because he had been advised to do so for the political purposes
of providing succession to the throne.” Pleasant this for the
lady, and glorious for the country—Royal breeding machines!
The Duke of Kent, who had the same additional vote, had about
^£25,000 a year, besides a grant of ,£20,000 towards the pay
ment of his debts, and a loan of .£6,000 advanced in 1806, of
which up to the time of his marriage only ,£1,000 had been repaid.
Of Edward Augustus Duke of Kent, father of her present
Majesty, it is only necessary to say a few words. The fourth
son of George III. was somewhat better than his brothers, and
perhaps for this very reason he seems always to have been dis
liked, and kept at a distance by his father, mother, and brothers.
Nor was the Duke of Kent less disliked amongst the army,
which he afterwards commanded. Very7 few of the officers
loved him, and the bulk of the privates seem to have regarded
him with the most hostile feelings. Kept very short of money
by his miserly father and mother, he had even before his ma
jority incurred considerable debts ; and coming to England in
1790, in order to try and induce the King to make him some
sufficient allowance, he was ordered to quit England in ten days.
While allowances were made to all the other sons of George,
�The House of Brunswick.
81
the Duke of Kent had no Parliamentary vote until he was
thirty-three years of age. In 1802 he was appointed Governor
of Gibraltar, where a mutiny took place, and the Duke had a
narrow escape of his life. The Duke of Kent’s friends allege
that this mutiny was encouraged by officers of the highest rank,
secretly sustained by the Duke of York. The Duke of York’s
friends, on the contrary, maintain that the overbearing conduct
of the Duke of Kent, his severity in details, and general harsh
ness in command, alone produced the result. The Duke of Kent
was recalled from the Government of Gibraltar, and for some
months the pamphleteers were busy on behalf of the two Dukes,
each seeking to prove that the Royal brother of his Royal
client was a dishonourable man. Pleasant people, these Bruns
wicks 1 If either side wrote the truth, one of the Dukes was a
rascal. If neither side wrote the truth, both were. The follow
ing extract from a pamphlet by Mary Anne Clarke, mistress of
the Duke of York, will serve to show the nature of the publica
tions I refer to : “I believe there is scarcely a military man in
the kingdom who was at Gibraltar during the Duke of Kent’s
command of that fortress but is satisfied that the Duke of
York’s refusal of a court martial to his Royal brother af
forded an incontestible proof of his regard for the military
character and honour of the Duke of Kent ; for if a court
martial had been granted to the Governor of Gibraltar, I
always understood there was but one opinion as to what
would have been the result; and then the Duke of Kent
would have lost several thousands a year, and incurred such
public reflections that would, most probably, have been pain
ful to his honourable and acute feelings. It was, however,
this act of affection for the Duke of Kent that laid the
foundation of that hatred which has followed the Commander
in-Chief up to the present moment; and to this unnatural
feeling he is solely indebted for all the misfortunes and dis
grace to which he has been introduced. In one of the many
conversations which I had with Majors Dodd and Glennie,
upon the meditated ruin of the Duke of York, they informed
me that their royal friend had made every endeavour in his power
to poison the King's ear against the Commander-in-Chief, but
as Colonel Taylor was so much about the person of his Majesty,
all his efforts had proved ineffectual; and to have spoken his
sentiments before Colonel Taylor would have been very inju
dicious, as he would immediately have communicated them to
the Commander-in-Chief, who, though he knew this time (said
these confidential and worthy patriots) that the Duke of Kent
was supporting persons to write against him, and that some
parliamentary proceedings were upon the eve of bursting upon
the public attention, yet deported himself towards his royal
brother as if they lived but for each other’s honour and happi
ness ; and the Duke of Kent, to keep up appearances, was more
particular in his attentions to the Duke of York than he had
ever been before.”
�82
The House of Brunswick.
Despite the Duke of Kent’s recall, he continued to receive
salary and allowances as Governor. After the celebration of the
marriage, he resided abroad, and was on such unfriendly terms
with his family that when he returned from Amorbach to England,
it was against the express orders of the Prince Regent, who,
shortly after meeting his brother at the Spanish Ambassador’s,
took not the slightest notice of him.
On the 17th November, 1818, the Queen died, and the custody
of the body of the mad, deaf, and blind monarch of England was
nominally transferred to the Duke of York, who was voted an
extra ,£10,000 a year for performing the duty of visiting his royal
father twice a week. Objection was ineffectually raised that his
Royal Highness had also his income as Commander-in-Chief
and General Officer, and it might have also been added, his
pensions and his income as Prince Bishop of Osnaburg. Mr.
Curwen said : “ Considering how complete the revenue of his
Royal Highness was from public emoluments, he could not con
sent to grant him one shilling upon the present occasion.”
In 1819, the Duke of Kent tried to get up a lottery for the sale
of his Castlebar estate, in order to pay his debts, which were
then about ,£70,000, but the project being opposed by the Prince
Regent, fell to the ground.
On the 24th of May, 1819, her present Majesty was bom;
and on the 23rd January, 1820, the Duke of Kent, her father,
died.
On the 29th January, 1820, after a sixty years’ reign—in which
debt, dishonour, and disgrace accrued to the nation he reigned
over—George III. died. The National Debt at the date of his
accession to the throne was about £ 150,000,000, at his death it
was about ,£900,000,000.
Phillimore asks : “ Had it not been for the unlimited power
of borrowing, how many unjust and capricious wars would
have been avoided. How different would be our condition, and
the condition of our posterity. If half the sum lavished to prevent
any one bearing the name of Napoleon from residing in France,
for replacing the Bourbons on the thrones of France and Naples,
for giving Belgium to Holland, Norway to Sweden, Finland
to Russia, Venice and Lombardy to Austria, had been employed
by individual enterprise, what would now be the resources of
England.”
An extract, giving Lord Brougham’s summary of George III.’s
life and character, may, we think, fairly serve to close this
chapter :—“ Of a narrow understanding, which no culture had
enlarged ; of an obstinate disposition, which no education per
haps could have humanised ; of strong feelings in ordinary
things, and a resolute attachment to all his own opinions and
predilections, George III. possessed much of the firmness of
purpose which, being exhibited by men of contracted mind
without any discrimination, and as pertinaciously when they are
in the wrong as when they are in the right, lends to their cha
racters an appearance of inflexible consistency, which is often
�The House of Brunswick.
83
mistaken for greatness of mind, and not seldom received as a
substitute for honesty. In all that related to his kingly office he
was the slave of deep-rooted selfishness ; and no fueling of a
kindly nature ever was allowed access to his bosom whenever
his power was concerned.”
CHAP. V.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
The wretched reign of George IV. commenced on the 30th
January, 1820. Mr. Buckle speaks of “the incredible baseness
of that ignoble voluptuary who succeeded George III. on the
throne.” The coronation was delayed for a considerable period,
partly in consequence of the hostility between the King and his
unfortunate wife, and partly because of the cost. We find the
Right Hon. Thomas Grenville writing of the coronation : “ I
think it probable that it will be put off, because the King will
not like it unless it be expensive, and Vansittart knows not how
to pay for it if it is.” Generous monarchs, these Brunswicks !
Thousands at that moment were in a state of starvation in
England, Scotland, and Ireland. Lord Cassilis writes : “ There
seems nothing but chaos and desolation whatever way a man
may turn himself.......... the lower orders existing only from the
circumstance of the produce of the land being unmarketable.
.......... The weavers are certainly employed, but they cannot
earn more than from six to eight shillings a week. Such is our
state.” When the coronation did ultimately take place, some
strange expenses crept in. Diamonds were charged for to the
extent, it is said, of ,£80,000, which found their way to one of
the King’s favoured mistresses. The crown itself was made up
with hired jewels, which were kept for twenty-one months after
the coronation, and for the hire of which alone the country
paid ^11,000. The charge for coronation robes was ,£24,000.
It was in consequence of Sir Benjamin Bloomfield having to
account for some of the diamonds purchased that he resigned
his position in the King’s household. Rather than be suspected
of dishonesty, he preferred revealing that they had reached the
hands of Lady Conyngham. Sir George Naylor, in an infa
mously servile publication, for which book alone the country
paid,£3,000, describes “the superb habiliments which his Ma
jesty, not less regardful of the prosperity of the people than of
the splendour of his throne, was pleased to enjoin should be
worn upon the occasion of his Majesty’s sacred coronation.”
Sir William Knighton declares that on the news of the King’s
death reaching the Prince Regent, “ the fatal tidings were re
ceived with a burst of grief that was very affecting.” The King
had been mad and blind and deaf for ten years, and the Queen,
years before, had complained of the Prince’s conduct as unfilial,
�84
The House of Brunswick.
if not inhuman. With the Prince Regent’s known character,
this sudden burst of grief is really “ very affecting.”
On the 23rd of February, London was startled with the news
of what since has been described as the Cato Street Conspiracy.
The trial of Arthur Thistlewood and his misguided associates,
is valuable for one lesson. The man who found money for the
secret conspirators, and who incited them to treason and murder,
was one George Edwards. This Edwards was well described by
one of the journals of the period, “ as neither more nor less than
the confidential agent of the original conspirators, to hire for
them the treasons they have a purpose in detecting.” By origi
nal conspirators were meant Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth. In the House of Commons, Mr. Aiderman Wood moved
formally, “ That George Edwards be brought to the bar of the
House on a breach of privilege. He pledged himself, if he had
this incendiary in his hands, to convict him of the crimes im
puted ; he hoped he had not been suffered to escape beyond
seas ; otherwise there were hon. gentlemen who were in pos
session of him, so that he might be produced ”—meaning by this
that he was kept out of the way by the Government. “ He re
garded him as the sole author and contriver of the Cato Street
plot. It was strange how such a man should be going about
from public-house to public-house, nay, from one private house
to another, boldly and openly instigating to such plots ; and, in
the midst of this, should become, from abject poverty, suddenly
flush with money, providing arms, and supplying all conspirators.”
Mr. Hume seconded the motion. “ It appeared by the deposi
tions, not of one person only, but of a great many persons, that
the individual in question had gone about from house to house
with hand-grenades, and, up to twenty-four hours only preceding
the 23rd of February, had been unceasingly urging persons to
join with him in the atrocious plot to assassinate his Majesty’s
Ministers. All of a sudden he became quite rich, and was buy
ing arms in every quarter, at every price, and of every descrip
tion ; still urging a variety of persons to unite with him. Now
it was very fitting for the interest of the country, that thecountry
should know who the individuals were who supplied him with
the money.”
As a fair specimen of the disposition of the King in dealing
with his Ministry, I give the following extract from a memoran
dum of Lord Chancellor Eldon, dated April 26th, 1820 : “ Our
royal master seems to have got into temper again, so far as I
could judge from his conversation with me this morning. He
has been pretty well disposed to part with us all, because we
would not make additions to his revenue. This we thought
conscientiously we could not do in the present state of the
country, and of the distresses of the middle and lower orders of
the people—to which we might add, too, that of the higher orders.
My own individual opinion was such that I could not bring my
self to oppress the country at present by additional taxation for
that purpose.”
�The House of Brunswick.
85
On the 23rd of March, Henry Hunt, John Knight, Joseph
Johnson, Joseph Healey, and Samuel Bamford, were, after six
days’ trial at York, found guilty of unlawfully assembling. Lord
Grenville feared that if acquitted, Peterloo might form a terrible
bill of indictment against the Ministry. His Lordship writes on
March 29th, to the Marquis of Buckingham : “It would have
been a dreadful thing if it had been established by the result of
that trial that the Manchester meeting was under all its cir
cumstances a legal assembly.” His Lordship knew that the
magistrates and yeomanry cavalry might have been indicted for
murder had the meeting been declared legal. Sir C. Wolseley
and the Rev. J. Harrison were at this time being prosecuted
for seditious speaking, and were ultimately found guilty on April
10th. In May the state of the country was terrible; even
Baring, the Conservative banker, on May 7th, described the
“ state of England ” to a full House of Commons, “ in the most
lamentable terms.” On the 8th we find Mr. W. H. Fremantle
saying of the King, “ His language is only about the Coronation
and Lady Conyngham [his then favourite sultana] ; very little of
the state of the country.” Early in June, it being known that
Queen Caroline was about to return to England, and that she
intended to be present at the Coronation, the King offered her
£50,000 a year for life to remain on the Continent, and forbear
from claiming the title of Queen of England. This Caroline
indignantly refused. The Queen’s name had, by an order in
Council, and on the King’s direction, been omitted from the
Liturgy as that of a person unfit to be prayed for, and on the
6th July a bill of pains and penalties was introduced by Lord
Liverpool, alleging adultery between the Queen and one Barto
lomeo Bergami. To wade through the mass of disgusting evi
dence offered by the advisers of the King in support of the Bill,
is terrible work. It seems clear that many of the witnesses
committed perjury. It is certain that the diplomatic force of
England was used to prevent the Queen from obtaining wit
nesses on her behalf. Large sums of the taxpayers’ money were
shown to have been spent in surrounding the Princess of Wales
with spies in Italy and Switzerland. Naturally the people took
sides with the Queen. To use the language of William Cobbett :
u The joy of the people, of all ranks, except nobility, clergy, and
the army and the navy, who in fact were theirs, was boundless ;
and they expressed it in every possible way that people can
express their joy. They had heard rumours about a lewd life,
and about an adulterous intercourse. They could not but believe
that there was some foundation for something of this kind ; but
they, in their justice, went back to the time when she was in fact
turned out of her husband’s house, with a child in her arms,
without blame of any sort ever having been imputed to her.
They compared what they had heard of the wife with what they
had seen of the husband, and they came to their determination
accordingly. As far as related to the question of guilt or inno
cence they cared not a straw; they took a large view of the
�86
The House of Brunswick.
matter ; they went over her whole history ; they determined that
she had been wronged, and they resolved to uphold her.”
On the 6th of August, the Duchess of York died. Dr. Doran
thus writes her epitaph :—“ Her married life had been unhappy,
and every day of it was a disgrace to her profligate, unprincipled,
and good-tempered husband.”
In the month of September Lord Castlereagh was compelled
to admit that the expenses incurred in obtaining evidence from
abroad against the Queen, had been defrayed out of the Secret
Service money. The trial of Queen Caroline lasted from the
17th of August until the 10th of November, when in a house of
307 peers, the Queen was found guilty by a majority of 9 votes.
On this, Lord Liverpool said that “ as the public sentiment had
been expressed so decidedly against the measure,” he would
withdraw the Bill. Amongst those who voted against the Queen,
the names appear of Frederick Duke of York and William
Henry Duke of Clarence. They had been most active in
attacking the Queen, and now were shameless enough to vote as
her judges. While the trial was proceeding, the Duke of York’s
private conversation “ was violent against the Queen.” He ought
surely, for very shame’s sake, this Prince-Bishop, to have re
membered the diamonds sent by the King his father to Princess
Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of Brunswick. Being the bearer of
the jewels, his Royal Highness the Duke of York and PrinceBishop of Osnaburg, stole them, and presented them to Mrs.
Mary Anne Clarke. Mr. Denman, the Queen’s Solicitor-General,
was grandly audacious in his indictment of the King’s brothers for
their cowardly conduct. In the presence of the assembled Lords,
he, without actually referring to him by name, denounced the
Dukeof Clarence as acalumniator. Hecalled on the Duke to come
forward openly, saying, “ Come forth, thou slanderer.” And this
slanderer was afterwards our King ! The Queen, in a protest
against the Bill, declared that “those who avowed themselves her
prosecutors have presumed to sit in judgment upon the question
between the Queen and themselves. Peers have given their voices
against her, who had heard the whole evidence for the charge, and
absented themselves during her defence. Others have come to
the discussion from the Secret Committee with minds biassed by
a mass of slander, which her enemies have not dared to bring
forward in the light.” Lord Dacre in presenting the protest to
the assembled peers, added : “ Her Majesty complained that the
individuals who formed her prosecutors in this odious measure,
sat in judgment against her. My Lords, I need not express an
opinion upon this complaint; delicacy alone ought to have, in
my opinion, prevented their becoming her accusers, and also her
judges.”
George IV. was guilty of the vindictive folly of stripping
Brougham of his King’s Counsel gown, as a punishment for his
brilliant defence of the Queen.
While the trial of the Queen was going on, it might have been
thought that the King would at any rate affect a decency of con-
�The House of Brunswick.
87
duct. But these Brunswicks are shameless. Speaking of the
cottage at Windsor, on August nth, Mr. Fremantle says
“ The principal object is of course the Lady Conyngham, who
is here. The King and her always together, separated from the
rest, they ride every day or go on the water, and in the evening
sitting alone.......... The excess of his attentions and enjouement
is beyond all belief.” On December 17th, Mr. Fremantle finds
the King ill, and says : “ The impression of my mind is that
the complaint is in the head.” Most of the Brunswicks have
been affected in the head. Either George I. was insane, or
George II. was not his son. George II. himself had certainly
one or two delusions, if not more. George III.’s sanity is not
affirmed by any one. It may be a question whether or not any
allegation of hereditary affection is enough however to justify
an appeal to Parliament for a re-arrangement of the succession
to the throne.
On the 9th of January, 1821, King George IV. wrote a private
letter to Lord Chancellor Eldon, in the “ double capacity as a
friend and as a minister,” in order to influence the proceedings
then pending in the law courts “ against vendors of treason and
libellers.”
On the 8th of June, on the motion of Lord Londonderry, and
after an ineffectual opposition by Mr. Hume, ,£6,000 a year ad
ditional was voted to the Duke of Clarence. The vote was
made retrospective, and thus gave the Duke ,£18,000 extra in
cash. Besides this, we find a charge of .£9,166 for fitting up
the Duke’s apartments.
On the 5th of July, Mr. Scarlett moved the court on behalf of
Olivia Wilmot Serres, claiming to be the legitimate daughter of
the Duke of Cumberland, who was brother of George III. Mr.
Scarlett submitted that he had documents proving the accuracy
of the statement, but on a technical point the matter was not
gone into.
In August, 1821, King George IV. visited Ireland. Knowing
his habits, and the customs of some other members of the
family, it excites little surprise to read that, on the voyage to
Dublin, “ his Majesty partook most abundantly of goose pie
and whiskey,” and landed in Ireland “ in the last stage of in
toxication.” And this was a king ! This journey to Ireland
cost the country ,£58,261. In a speech publicly made by the
King in Ireland within a few hours after receiving the news of
Queen Caroline’s death, the monarch said : “ This is one of the
happiest days of my life.”
On the 7th of August Queen Caroline died. In Thelwall’s
Champion there is a full account of the disgraceful conduct of
the King’s Government with reference to the funeral. On the
morning of the 14th, after a disgusting contest between her
executors and the King’s Government for the possession of her
remains, they were removed from Brandenburgh House towards
Harwich, on their way to interment at Brunswick. The ministers,
to gratify personal feelings of unworthy rancour beyond the
�88
The House of Brunswick.
grave, gave orders that the funeral should take a circuit, to avoid
manifestations of sympathy from the Corporation and the people
along the direct route through London. At Kensington, the
procession found every road but that of London barricaded by
the people, and was constrained to take the forbidden route,
with the intention of passing through Hyde Park into the
northern road. The Park gate was closed and barricaded, but
was forced by the military. The upper gate was also barricaded.
Here a conflict took place between the military and the people,
and two persons were shot by the soldiers. The procession
moved on, the conflict was renewed, the people triumphed, and
the corpse was borne through the City. Sir Robert Wilson re
monstrated with some soldiers and an officer on duty ; but his
humane interference caused his removal from the army. In re
turn, a large sum was subscribed by the public to compensate
Sir Robert Wilson for his loss. The directing civil magistrate
present, for having consulted his humanity in preference to his
orders, and to prevent bloodshed yielded to the wishes of the
multitude, was also deprived of his commission. On the in
quest on the body of one of the men shot, the coroner’s jury,
vindicating the rights of the people, returned a verdict of “ Wilful
murder ” against the Life Guardsman who fired.
While the King was in Ireland he paraded his connection
with the Marchioness of Conyngham in the most glaring man
ner. Fremantle says : “ I never in my life heard of anything to
equal the King’s infatuation and conduct towards Lady Conyng
ham. She lived exclusively with him during the whole time he
was in Ireland, at the Phoenix Park. When he went to Slane,
she received him dressed out as for a drawing-room. He saluted
her, and they then retired alone to her apartments.”
If it be objected that I am making too great a feature of the
Marchioness of Conyngham’s connection with the King, I plead
my justification in Henry W. Wynn’s declaration of “her folly
and rapacity,” affirming that this folly and rapacity have left
their clear traces on the conduct of affairs, and in the increase
of the national burdens. Her husband, as a reward for her
virtue, was made an English peer in 1821. Lord Mount Charles,
his eldest son, was made Master of the Robes, Groom of his
Majesty’s Bedchamber, and ultimately became a member of the
Government. On this, Bulwer said : “ He may prove himself an
admirable statesman, but there is no reason to suppose it.”
In order that the student of history may fairly judge the ac
count of the rapturous reception given to the King in Ireland,
it is needful to add that political discontent was manifest on all
sides. Poverty and misery prevailed in Limerick, Mayo, Cavan,
and Tipperary, which counties were proclaimed, and occupied
by a large military force. Executions, imprisonments, and
tumults filled the pages of the daily journals.
In the autumn of 1821, King George IV. visited Hanover, and
if the Duke of Buckingham’s correspondence be reliable,
« Lord Liverpool put a final stop to the visit by declaring that
�The House of Brunswick.
89
no more drafts could be honoured, except for the direct return
home.”
On the 12th August, 1822, Castlereagh, the most noble the
Marquis of Londonderry, sent himself to heaven, from North
Cray Farm, Bexley, at the age of fifty-three. He was buried in
Westminster Abbey. Meaner clay would have been got rid of
at some cross roads.
“ The death,” says Wallace,“ of a public man in England—
especially a death so sudden and lamentable—greatly assuages
the political resentments against him in his life ; and there was
a reaction in aristocratic circles in favour of Lord Londonderry
when he ceased to live. His servile complaisance to despots
abroad, his predilection for the worst engines of government at
home, were for a moment forgotten. But the honest hatred of
the populace, deep-rooted, sincere, and savage, remained un
touched, and spoke in a fearful yell of triumphant execration
over his remains whilst his coffin was descending into the grave
in Westminster Abbey.”
No language could do fitting justice to Robert Stewart, Mar
quis of Londonderry. Words would be too weak to describe
Castlereagh’s cruelty and baseness towards his own country
men, or his infernal conduct in connection with the Government
of England. All that can be fittingly said is, that he was pre
eminently suited to be Minister of State under a Brunswick.
In 1823, the thanks of Parliament were presented to George
IV. for “ having munificently presented to the nation a library
formed by George III.” Unfortunately, the thanks were un
deserved. George IV. was discreditable enough to accept
thanks for a donation he had never made. The truth is, says
the Daily News, “ that the King being, as was his wont, in ur
gent need of money, entertained a proposal to sell his father’s
library to the Emperor of Russia for a good round sum. The
books were actually packed up, and the cases directed in due
form, when representations were made to Lord Sidmouth, then
Home Secretary, on the subject. The Minister resolved, if
possible, to hinder the iniquity from being perpetrated. Accord
ingly, he represented his view of the matter to the King.
George IV. graciously consented, after a good deal of solicita
tion, to present the library to the nation, conditionally on his re
ceiving in return the same sum as he would have received had
the sale of it to the Emperor of Russia been completed. What
the nation did was, firstly, to pay the money ; secondly, to erect
a room for the library at the cost of ,£140,000; and thirdly, to
return fulsome thanks to the sovereign for his unparalleled
munificence.”
On the 24th of April, 1825, the Duke of York spoke in the
House of Lords against Catholic Emancipation. His speech
was made, if not by the direction, most certainly with the con
sent, of the King. George IV.’s reluctance to Catholic Emanci
pation was deep-rooted and violent. The bare mention of the
subject exasperated him. He was known to say, and only in his
I
�90
The House of Brunswick.
milder mood, “I wish those Catholics were damned or eman
cipated.” The angered despotism of this alternative still afforded
the hope that his intolerance might be overcome by his selfish
love of ease. The Duke of York’s address to his brother peers
closed with the declaration that he would, to the last moment
of his life, whatever his situation, resist the emancipation of the
Catholics, “ so help him God !” All tyrants think themselves
immortal ; the Catholics and their cause outlived the Duke of
York, and triumphed. His speech, however, coming from the
presumptive heir to the Crown, had a great share in deciding
the majority of the Lords against the measure ; and acted with
great effect upon the congenial mass of brute ignorance and
bigotry which is found ready to deny civil rights to all outside
the pale of their own Church.
On the 5th January, 1827, the Duke of York died. Wallace,
in his “ Life of George IV.,” says : “ Standing in the relation of
heir-presumptive to the Throne; obstinately and obtuselyfortified
against all concession to the Catholics ; serving as a ready and
authoritative medium of Toryism and intolerance to reach, un
observed, the Royal ear—his death had a great influence upon
the state of parties, and was especially favourable to the ascend
ancy of Mr. Canning. He, some weeks only before he died, and
when his illness had already commenced, strenuously urged the
King to render the Government uniform and anti-Catholic—in
other words, to dismiss Mr. Canning ; and, had he recovered,
Mr. Canning must have ceased to be Foreign Minister, or the
Duke to be Commander-in-Chief. The Duke of York was not
without personal good qualities, which scarcely deserved the
name of private virtues, and were over-clouded by his private
vices. He was constant in his friendships—but who were his
friends and associates? Were they persons distinguished in
the State, in literature, in science, in arts, or even in his own
profession of arms ? Were they not the companions and sharers
of his dissipations and prodigalities? He did not exact from his
associates subserviency or form ; but it was notorious that, from
the meaness of his capacity, or the vulgarity of his tastes, he
descended very low before he found himself at his own social
level. His services to the army as Commander-in-Chief were
beyond all measure over-rated. Easy access, diligence, a me
chanical regularity of system, which seldom yielded to solicita
tion, and never discerned merit ; an unenvying, perhaps un
scrupulous, willingness to act upon the adviceland appropriate the
measures of others more able and informed than himself; these
were his chief merits at the Horse Guards. But, it will be said,
he had an uncompromising, conscientious fidelity to his public
principles ; this amounts to no more than that his bigotry was
honest and unenlightened. His death, perhaps, was opportune ;
his non-accession fortunate for the peace of the country and the
stability of his family on the Throne. Alike incapable of fear
and foresight, he would have risked the integrity of the United
Kingdom rather than concede the Catholic claims ; and the
�The House of Brunswick.
91
whole Monarchy rather than sanction Reform. It would be easy
to suggest a parallel, and not always to his advantage, between
the constitution of his mind and that of James, Duke of York,
afterwards James II., whose obstinate bigotry forced the nation
to choose between their liberties and his deposition from the
Throne.”
In 1827, the Duke of Clarence obtained, after much opposi
tion, a further vote of £8,000 a year to himself, besides £6,000
a year to the Duchess. The Duke of Clarence also had £3,000
a year further, consequent on the death of the Duke of York,
making his allowance £43,000 a year.
In April, 1829, the infamous Duke of Cumberland had stated,
that if the King gave his assent to the Catholic Emancipation
Bill, he (the Duke) would quit England never to return to it.
The Right Honourable Thomas Grenville says, in a letter dated
April 9th : “ There is some fear that a declaration to that effect
may produce a very general cheer even in the dignified assem
bly of the House of Lords.” How loved these Brunswicks have
been even by their fellow peers !
On the 10th of April, the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill
passed the House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington confessing
that civil war was imminent, if the relief afforded by the measure
was longer delayed.
On June 26th, 1830, the Royal physicians issued a bulletin,
stating that “ it has pleased Almighty God to take from this
world the King’s most excellent majesty.” Most excellent
majesty ! ! A son who threatened his mother to make public
the invalidity of her marriage ; a lover utterly regardless of the
well-being of any one of his mistresses ; a bigamous husband,
who behaved most basely to his first wife, and acted the part of
a dishonourable scoundrel to the second; a brother at utter
enmity with the Duke of Kent; a son who sought to aggravate
the madness of his Royal father ; a cheat in gaming and racing.
He dies because lust and luxury have, through his lazy life, done
their work on his bloated carcass, and England sorrows for the
King’s “most excellent majesty 1”
George IV. was a great King. Mrs. J. R. Greer, in her work
on “ Quakerism,” says that he once went to a woman’s meeting
in Quaker dress. “ His dress was all right; a grey silk gown,
a brown cloth shawl, a little white silk handkerchief with hemmed
edge round his neck, and a very well poked friend’s bonnet,
with the neatly-crimped border of his clear muslin cap tied
under the chin, completed his disguise.” Royal George was
detected, but we are told that the Quakers, who recognised their
visitor, were careful to treat him with courtesy and deference !
In the ten years’ reign, the official expenditure for George IV.
and his Royal Family, was at the very least £ 16,000,000 sterling.
Windsor Castle cost £894,500, the Pavilion at Brighton is said
to have cost a million, and another half-million is alleged to
have been expended on the famous “ Cottage.” After the King’s
death his old clothes realised £ 15,000.
�92
The House of Brunswick.
Thackeray says of him that he “ never resisted any tempta
tion ; never had a desire but he coddled it and pampered it; if
he ever had any nerve, he frittered it away among cooks, and
tailors, and barbers, and furniture-mongers, and opera dancers
.......... all fiddling, and flowers, and feasting, and flattery, and
folly.......... a monstrous image of pride, vanity, and weakness.”
Wallace says : “ Monarchy, doubtless, has its advantages;
but it is a matter of serious reflection that under a government
called free, among a people called civilised, the claims of millions,
and the contingent horrors of a civil war, should be thus depen
dent upon the distempered humours and paramount will of a
single unit of the species.”
CHAP. VI.
THE REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.
William Henry, Duke of Clarence, Admiral of the Fleet, and
third son of George III., born August 21st, 1765, succeeded his
brother George IV. as King of England, on the 26th June, 1830.
The new King was then 65 years of age, and had been married,
July nth, 1818, to Adelaide Amelia Louisa Teresa Caroline,
Princess of Saxe-Meiningen. Mrs. Dorothy Jordan, with whom
William had lived, and who had borne him ten children, had
fled to France to avoid her creditors, and had there died,
neglected by the world, deserted by William, and in the greatest
poverty. This Mrs. Jordan was sold to William by one Richard
Ford, her former lover, who, amongst other rewards of virtue,
was created a Knight, and made Police Magistrate at Bow Street.
Mrs. Jordan’s children bore the name of “ Fitzclarence,” and
great dissatisfaction was expressed against the King, who, too
mean to maintain them out of his large income, contrived to
find them all posts at the public cost. At the date of William
IV.’s accession, the imperial taxation was about ^47,000,000 ;
to-day it has increased at least ^25,000,000.
The annual allowances to the junior branches of the Royal
Family in 1830, formerly included in the Civil List, and now
paid separately, were as follows :—■
The Duke of Cumberland ,£21,0'00. He had no increase on
his marriage ; the House of Commons rejected a motion to that
effect; but an allowance of £6,000 a year for his son. Prince
George, had been issued to him since he became a resident in
this country. This is the Duke of Cumberland, who so loved
his brother, William IV., that he intrigued with the Orange
men to force William’s abdication, and to get made King in his
stead.
The Duke of Sussex received £21,000.
The Duke of Cambridge, father of the present Duke, had
�The House of Brunswick.
93
£27,000. He obtained an increase on his marriage of £6,000
a year. This Prince was charged with the government of the
family territory, the kingdom of Hanover, and consequently re
sided but little in England.
Princess Augusta, £ 13,000.
The Princess Elizabeth of Hesse Homburg, £13,000.
Princess Sophia, £ 13,000.
The Duchess of Kent, including the allowance granted in
1831, for her daughter, the Princess Victoria, heir-presumptive
to the Throne, £22,000.
The Duke of Gloucester, including £13,000 which he received
as the husband of the Princess Mary, £27,000.
The Princess Sophia of Gloucester, his sister, £7,000.
Queen Adelaide had £'100,000 a year, and the residence at
Bushey, granted to her for life.
Mrs. Fitzherbert, as the widow of George IV., was in receipt
of £6,000 a year, and the ten Fitzclarences also enjoyed places
and pensions.
The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were the King’s
Ministers ; and, although there was some personal hostility be
tween William and the Iron Duke, they were at first his willing
coadjutors. in opposing either reduction of expenditure, or any
kind of political or social reform. The quarrel between Wil
liam as Duke of Clarence and the Duke of Wellington had
arisen when William was Lord High Admiral. William had
given improper orders to a military officer, named Cockburn,
which the latter had refused to obey. The Duke of Wellington
refused to sacrifice Cockburn, and ultimately the Duke of Cla
rence resigned his office as Lord High Admiral, for which, says
the Rev. Mr. Molesworth, “ he was ill-qualified, and in which
he was doing great mischief.”
In November, 1830, Earl Grey, Lord Brougham, Lord Mel
bourne, and Lord Althorp came into office as leaders of the
Whig party. With slight exception, in 1806, the Whigs had
not been before in office during the present century, and very
little indeed since 1762. The Whigs encouraged the Radical
Reformers so far as to ensure their own accession to power ; but
it is evident that the Whig Cabinet only considered how little
they could grant, and yet retain office. In finance, as well as
reform, they were disloyal to the mass of the people who pushed
them into power.
The Duke of Wellington and his Ministry resigned office in
November, 1830, because the House of Commons wished to
appoint a Select Committee to examine the Civil List. King
William IV., according to the words of a letter written by him
to Earl Grey, on December 1st, 1830, felt considerable “alarm
and uneasiness ” because Joseph Hume, and other Radical
members, wished to put some check on the growing and already
extravagant Royal expenditure. He objects “most strenu
ously,” and says, referring on this especially to the Duchy of
Lancaster :—“ Earl Grey cannot be surprised that the King
�94
The House of Brunswick.
should view with jealousy any idea of Parliamentary interference
with the only remaining pittance of an independent possession,
which has been enjoyed by his ancestors, during many cen
turies, as their private and independent estate, and has now,
as such, lawfully devolved upon him in right of succession.
That he should feel that any successful attempt to deprive the
Sovereign of this independent possession, will be to lower and
degrade him into the state and condition of absolute and entire
dependence, as a pensioner of the House of Commons, to place
him in the condition of an individual violating or surrendering
a trust which had been held sacred by his ancestors, and which
he is bound to transmit to his successors. The King cannot
indeed conceive upon what plea such a national invasion of the
private rights, and such a seizure of the private estates, of the
Sovereign could be justified.”
William IV. reminds Earl Grey, that the Chancellor of the
Duchy is sworn to do all things “ for the weal and profit of the
King’s Highness. And his Majesty has fair reason to expect
that a pledge so solemnly taken will be fulfilled, and that he will
be supported in his assertion of these private rights, not only of
himself, but of his heirs and successors, as they have devolved
upon him, separate from all other his possessions jure coronce,
and consequently, as his separate personal and private, estate,
vested in his Majesty, by descent from Henry VII. in his body
natural, and not in his body politic as King.”
Earl Grey naturally promised to prevent Radical financial
reformers from becoming too annoying to Royalty. The Whigs
love to talk of economy out of office, and to avoid it when in
place.
Daniel O’Connell appears to have much troubled the King.
Directly after the Dublin meeting in December, 1830, Sir Henry
Taylor says : “ The King observed, that he would have been
better pleased if this assembly of people had not dispersed
quietly at his bidding, as the control which he has successfully
exercised upon various occasions in this way, appears to his
Majesty the most striking proof of the influence he has acquired
over a portion of the lower classes in Ireland.”
It is pretended in the Cabinet Register for 1831, and vfas
stated by Lord Althorp in Parliament, that “ his Majesty m ost
nobly and patriotically declined to add to the burdens of his
people by accepting an outfit for his royal consort, though ,£54,000
had been granted by Parliament to the Oueen of George III.,
as an outfit to purchase jewels, &c.” This is so little true, that
it appears from the correspondence between the King and Earl
Grey, that a grant for the Queen’s outfit had been agreed to by
the outgoing Tories, and would have been proposed by the new
Whig Government, had not one of the Cabinet (probably Lord
Brougham) decidedly objected, on the ground “ that proposing
a grant for this purpose would have a bad effect on the House
of Commons, and on public opinion and by a letter dated
February 4th, 1831, from the King, it is clear that he only aban
�The House of Brunswick.
95
doned the claim when he found he could not get it. There is
not a word about “ the burdens of the people,” although many at
that time were in a starving condition. On the contrary, the
secretary of the King says on the 6th of February, that “ the
disinclination shown in the House of Commons ” to grant the
outfit, had “produced a very painful impression on his Majesty.”
The King, afraid of the spread of Reform opinions, says that
he “ trusts that the Lord-Lieutenants and Deputy-Lieutenants
of counties will be cautioned to scrutinise the ballots for the
militia as far as possible, so as to endeavour to exclude from its
ranks men of dangerous and designing character, whose influ
ence might prove very pernicious upon newly-established corps,
and before they shall' have acquired habits of discipline and
subordination.” And to show his desire for .Reform, he urges
the Ministers to check the public gatherings, saying, “ I am ig
norant to what extent it may be in contemplation to increase the
military means, either by calling out the militia partially, or by
any addition to the regular force ; but I am convinced that the
latter would be not only the most efficient, but the cheapest; and
it would have the advantage of being applicable to all purposes.”
The Reformer King—for this pretence has been made—in
another letter says : “ His Majesty is satisfied that he may rely
upon Earl Grey’s strenuous support in his determination to re
sist all attempts which may be made to sap the established rights
of the Crown, and to destroy those institutions under which&this
country has so long prospered, while others have been suffering
so severely from the effects of revolutionary projects, and from
the admission of what are called Radical remedies....;....He is
induced thus pointedly to notice the proposal of introducing
Election by Ballot, in order to declare that nothing should ever
induce him to yield to it, or to sanction a practice which would
in his opinion, be a protection to concealment, would abolish
the influence of fear and shame, and would be inconsistent with
the manly spirit and the free avowal of opinion which distinguish
the people of England. His Majesty need scarcely add that his
opposition to the introduction of another, yet more objectionable
proposal, the adoption of Universal Suffrage, one of the wild
projects which have sprung from revolutionary speculation
would have been still more decided.”
’
How William IV. could ever have been suspected of being
favourable to Reform, is difficult to comprehend. As Duke of
Clarence he had spoken in favour of the Slave Trade, and had
declared that its abolition should meet with his most serious
and most unqualified opposition.” When the Reform Bill actually
became law, although William IV. did not dare to veto it he re
fused to give the royal assent in person.
’
In this chapter there is not space enough to go through the
higory of the Reform agitation of 1832. In Molesworth’s
u J^s.tory °f the Reform Bill,” and Roebuck’s account of the
Whig Ministry, the reader will find the story fully told It is not
enough to say here that the King not only hindered Reform until
�96
Ths House of Brunswick.
Revolution was imminent, and the flames of burning castles and
mansions were rising in different parts of England, but it may be
stated that he condescended to deceive his Ministers; that he
allowed his children to canvass peers against the Bill, and would
have resorted to force to crush the Birmingham Political Union,
if he could have thrown the responsibility of this tyranny upon
the Cabinet. In the King’s eyes the people were “ the rabble.”
We find him “ impatient ” for the return of the Tories to power,
and bitterly discontented when the orderly character of popular
demonstrations rendered the employment of the military im
possible.
The Earl of Munster, one of the King’s ten children by Mrs.
Jordan, and who was Governor of Windsor Castle, Colonel in the
Army, Aide-de-Camp to the King, Lieutenant of the Tower,
Tory and State pensioner, being charged with having “ unhand
somely intrigued against Earl Grey’s Government,” made the
curious defence“ that for six months before and for twenty-four
hours after the resignation ” of the Grey Government, “ it was
from certain circumstances out of his power to act in the matter
imputed to him.”
It is worthy of notice, as against Mr. Frederic Harrison’s
opinion, that no English monarch could now really interfere
with the course of government in Great Britain, that in April,
1832, William IV. gave written directions to Earl Grey, “that
no instructions should be sent ” to foreign ambassadors until
they had “ obtained his previous concurrence.” And it is clear,
from a letter of the King’s private secretary, that William gave
these orders because he was afraid there was a “disposition
...... to unite with France in support of the introduction of liberal
opinions and measures agreeably to the spirit of the times.”
Although the newspapers praised William, he does not seem to
have been very grateful in private. In 1832, he declared to his
confidential secretary that he had “ long ceased to consider the
press (the newspaper family) in any other light than as the
vehicle of all that is false and infamous.”
In January, 1833, in a speech, not written for him, but made
extemporaneously after dinner, William IV. said, to compliment
the American Ambassador, “ that it had always been a matter
of serious regret to him that he had not been born a free, inde
pendent American.” We regret that the whole family have not
lon°- since naturalised themselves as American citizens. But
such a sentiment from the son of George III., from one who in
his youth had used the most extravagant phraseology in denun
ciation of the American rebels ! !
The family insanity, shown in the case of George 11. by his
persistence in wearing his Dettingen old clothes ; more notorious
and less possible of concealment in that of George III.; well
known to all but the people as to George IV., who actually tried
to persuade the Duke of Wellington that he (George) had led
a regiment at Waterloo, was also marked in William IV. In
April, 1832, the King’s own secretary admits “distressing symp
�The House of Brunswick.
97
toms ” and “ nervous excitement,” but says that the attack “ is
now subsiding.” Raikes, a Tory, and also a king-worshipper,
in his “ Diary,” under date May the 27th, 1834, says, after speak
ing of the King’s “ excitement ” and “rather extraordinary”
conduct, that11 at the levee a considerable sensation was created
the other day by his insisting that an unfortunate wooden-legged
lieutenant should kneel down.” On June nth, visiting the Royal
Academy, the President showed the King, amongst others, the
portrait of Admiral Napier, and was astonished to hear his
Majesty at once cry out : “ Captain Napier may be damned, sir,
and you may be damned, sir ; and if the Queen was not here,
sir, I would kick you down stairs, sir.”- The King’s brother, his
Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, died November 20th,
1834. Raikes says of him : “He was not a man of talent, as
may be inferred from his nickname of Silly Billy.” This is the
Royal Family, the head of which, according to Mr. Disraeli, was
physically and mentally incapable of performing the regal
functions, and which yet, according to that brilliant statesman,
so fitly represents the intelligence and honour of Great Britain.
In 1836, Sir William Knighton died. He had been made
private secretary to the late King, and had made his fortune by
means of some papers which Colonel Macmahon, confidant of
George IV., had when dying, and which came into Knighton’s
hands as medical attendant of the dying man. Sir W. Knighton
was made a “ Grand Cross,” not for his bravery in war, or in
telligence in the State, but for his adroit manipulation of secrets
relating to Lady Jersey, Mrs. Fitzherbert, and the Marchioness
of Conyngham. Sir William Knighton and the latter lady were
supposed to have made free with ^300,000 ; but great larcenies
win honour, and Sir W. Knighton died respected.
In August, 1836, William—hearing that the Duke of Bedford
had helped O Connell with money—ordered the Duke’s bust,
then in the Gallery at Windsor, to be taken down, and thrown
into the lifne kilns.
On June 20th, 1837, William IV. died. Ernest, Duke of Cum
berland, by William s death, became King of Hanover, and was
on the same day publicly hissed in the Green Park. Naturally,
in this loving family there was considerable disagreement for
some time previous to the King’s death between his Majesty and
the Duchess of Kent.
The. Edinburgh Review, soon after the King’s death, while
admitting that his understanding may not have been of as high
an order as his good nature,” says : “ We have learned to forget
|he ’au(:s °f the Duke of Clarence in the merits of William IV.”
Where were these merits shown ? Was it in “ brooding ”—(to
use the expression of his own private secretary)— over questions
of whether he could, during the commencement of his reign,
personally appropriate sums of money outside the Civil List
votes ? Was it in desiring that Colonel Napier might be “ struck
on the half-pay list,” for having made a speech at Devizes in
lavoui of 1 arliamentary Reform ? W as it when he tried to perK
�98
The House of Brunsivick.
suade Earl Grey to make Parliament pay Rundell and Bridge’s
bill for plate—and this when the masses were in a starving con
dition? Was it when he declared that he was by “ no means
dissatisfied” that a proposed meeting was likely to be so
“violent, and in other respects so objectionable,” as it would
afford the excuse for suppressing by force the orderly meetings
which, says his secretary, “ the King orders me to say he cannot
too often describe as being, in his opinion, far more mischievous
and dangerous ” than those of “ a more avowed and violent
character.”
CHAP. VII.
THE PRESENT REIGN.
Her present Majesty, Alexandrina Victoria, was born May 24th,
1819, and ascended the throne June 20th, 1837, as representing
her father, the Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III. On
February 10th, j 840, it being the general etiquette for the Bruns
wick family to intermarry amongst themselves, she was married
to her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg, who received an
allowance from the nation of £30,000, to compensate him for
becoming the husband of his wife. The Queen, more sensible
than others of the arduous position of a Prince Consort, wished
her loyal husband to have £ 100,000 a year. The Government
reduced this to £50,000; Joseph Hume and the Radicals re
duced it still further to ,£30,000, For this annual payment the
Prince undertook to submit to naturalisation, to be the first sub
ject in England, to reside rent free in the Royal Palaces re
paired at the cost of the nation. He also, on his own account,
and for his own profit, attended to various building speculations
at the West End of London, and died very rich. He is known
as Prince Albert the Good. His goodness is marked—not by
parks given to the people, as in the case of Sir Francis Crossley;
not by improved dwellings for the people, as in the case of
George Peabody ; not by a large and costly market place, freely
given, as in the case of Miss Burdett Coutts—Peeress without
her patent of Baroness;—but by statues erected in his honour
in many cities and boroughs by a loyal people. As an employer
of labour, the Prince’s reputation for generosity is marked solely
by these statues. As a Prince, he felt in his lifetime how much
and how truly he was loved by his people ; and at a dinner given
to the Guards, Prince Albert, in a speech probably not revised
beforehand, told the Household troops how he relied on them
to protect the throne against any assaults. The memory of the
Prince is dear to the people ; he has left us nine children to
keep out of the taxpayers’ pockets, his own large private accu
mulations of wealth being inapplicable to their maintenance.
When her Majesty ascended the throne, poor rates averaged
5s. 4^d. per head per annum ; to-day they exceed 7s. During
�The House of Brunswick.
99
the last fifteen years alone there has been an increase of more
than 250,000 paupers in England and Wales, and one person
out of every twenty-two is in receipt of workhouse relief. Every
body, however, agrees that the country is prosperous and happy.
In Scotland there has been an increase of 9,048 paupers in the
last ten years. Two out of every fifty-three Scotchmen are at
this moment paupers. In Ireland in the last ten years the out
door paupers have increased 19,504. As, however, we have,
during the reign of her present most gracious Majesty, driven
away the bulk of the Irish population, there are considerably
fewer paupers in Ireland than there are in Scotland. The
average Imperial taxation during the first ten years of her
Majesty’s reign was under ^50,000,000 a year. The average
taxation at the present day is over ,£70,000,000 a year. Pauper
ism and local and Imperial taxation are all on the increase, and,
despite agricultural labourers’ outcries and workmen’s strikes, it
is agreed that her Majesty’s reign has brought us many blessings.
On March 20th, 1842, the Earl of Munster, eldest son of
William IV., and who had been made Constable of Windsor
Castle by her Majesty, committed suicide. Although the eldest
son of the late King, his position as a natural child excluded
him from heaven, according to the Bible, and from all right to
the Throrfe, according to our law.
Her Majesty’s eldest daughter, the Princess Royal, Victoria
Adelaide Mary Louisa, is married to the Prince Imperial,
Frederick William of Germany, and, as it would have been
manifestly unreasonable to expect either the Queen or the Prince
Consort, out of their large private fortunes, to provide a dowry
for their daughter, the English nation pays ,£8,000 a year to the
Princess.
Her Majesty’s eldest son, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales,
Duke of Saxony, Cornwall, and Rothesay, and Earl of Dublin,
has earned already so wide a fame that notice here is almost
needless. As a writer, his letters—a few of which have been
published by the kind permission of Sir Charles Mordaunt—
illustrate the grasp of mind peculiar to the family, and mark in
strong relief the nobility of character of the Royal author. As a
military chieftain, the Autumn Manoeuvres of 1871 demonstrated
the tact and speed he could display in a strategic movement of
masterly retreat. As an investigator of social problems, he has
surpassed the Lords Townshend and Shaftesbury, and at Mabille
and in London has, by experience, entitled himself to speak with
authority. As a pigeon shooter, he can only be judged by com
parison with the respectable ex-bushranger now claiming the
Tichborne estates. Here, it is true, the latter is a man of more
weight. The Prince of Wales receives ,£40,000 a year, and we
give his wife ,£10,000 a year as a slight acknowledgment for the
position she has to occupy as Princess of Wales. With the
history of the wives of the two last Princes of Wales to guide
them, it is almost wonderful that the advisers of the Princess did
not insist on a much higher premium against the risks of the
�100
The House of Brunswick.
position. When his Royal Highness came of age, he found ac
cumulations of the Duchy of Cornwall of more than a million
sterling, which, invested in Consols, would bring him in at least
a further £40,000 per annum. His Royal Highness also has the
income of the Duchy of Cornwall, amounting net to about £63,000
a year. In addition to this, the Prince of Wales is entitled to
military salary as Colonel of the Rifle Brigade and 10th Hussars.
Last year—conscious that it is unfair to expect a Prince to live on
£153,000 a year—Z7>6oo were voted by Parliament for the repair
of the house in which he sometimes resides when in London.
A few years ago his Royal Highness was in Paris, and certain
scurrilous foreign prints pretended that on the Boulevard des
Italiens, in the face of France, he had forgotten that one day he
would seek to be King of England. It is written, “ In vino
■veritas” and if the proverb hold, the Prince is more than half
his time a man remarkable for his truthfulness. Some time
later, the Royal Leamington Chronicle, which, in his mercy, the
Prince of Wales never prosecuted, coupled his reputation with
infamy. Later, his Royal Highness was ill, and the nation wept.
Then came recovery and Thanksgiving at St. Paul’s.
“ So when the devil was sick,
The devil a saint would be ;
When the devil got well again,
The devil a saint was he.”
The Prince of Wales has since been to Paris, and, according to
La Liberte, has honoured Mabille with his Royal presence.
Her Majesty’s second son is Alfred Ernest, Duke of Edin
burgh. His Royal Highness, when serving on board the Galatea,
had leave to go on shore at Marseilles. Journeying to Paris, he
overstayed his leave, refused to return when summoned, and
stayed there, so Paris journals said, till his debts were thousands.
Any other officer in the navy would have been cashiered ; his
Royal Highness has since been promoted. The Duke of Edin
burgh visited our Colonies, and the nation voted about £3>5°°
for presents made by the Prince. The presents the Prince re
ceived were, of course, his own, and the vote enabled the Duke
o do justice to the generous sentiments of his family. The
Colonists pretended at the time that some of the presents were
not paid for by the Duke of Edinburgh ; nay, they went so far
as to allege that some of the Duke’s debts had to be discharged
by the Colonist Reception Committee. Representing the honour
of England, his Royal Highness earned himself a fame and a
name by the associates he chose. In visiting India, a special
sum of, we believe, £10,000 was taken from the Indian revenues
and handed to the Duke, so that an English Prince might be
liberal in his gifts to Indians at their own cost. Ihe Duke or
Edinburgh has £15,000 a year. Three years ago he borrowed
£450 from the pay-chest of the Galatea. I have no means ot
knowing whether it has since been paid back ; all I can afnim
is, that the country made up the deficient sum in the pay-chest
�The House of Brunswick.
101
without a word from any M.P. Had the borrower been a pay
sergeant, he would have been sent to a District Military Prison;
if a commissioned officer, other than a Royal one, he would
have been dismissed the service. The difference between the
Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh is this : in the first
case, the virtues of the Prince equal his intelligence ; in the
second case, the intelligence of the Duke is more developed than
are his virtues.
In the case of Broadwood v. the Duke of St. Albans, both the
Royal brothers were permitted to guard a pleasant incognito.
The judge who allowed this concealment was soon afterwards
created a Peer of the Realm.
Our army and navy, without reckoning the Indian Establish
ment, cost more to-day, by about £9,000,000 a year, than when
her Majesty ascended the throne. Her Majesty’s cousin, George
William Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, is Commander-in-Chief
of the Army, and for this service receives ,£4,432 per annum.
His Royal Highness also receives the sum of £12,000 in con
sequence of his being the cousin of the Queen. His Royal High
ness is also Field-Marshal, and Colonel of four distinct regi
ments, for which he gets more than ,£5,000 annually. Naturally,
in the Duke is found embodied the whole military talent of the
Royal Family. His great-uncle, the Duke of Cumberland,
carved “Klosterseven” on the Brunswick monuments. Frederick
Duke of York, the uncle of the Duke of Cambridge, recalled
from the field of battle, that he might wear in peace at home
the laurels he had won abroad, added “ Clarke ” and “ Tonyn ”
as names to vie with Cressy or Waterloo. The present Duke
of Cambridge was, when Prince George, stationed in Yorkshire,
in the famous “ plug plot ” times, and his valiancy then threat
ened most lustily what he would do against the factory “ turn
outs,” poor starved wretches clamouring for bread. In the
army, the normal schoolmasters can tell how this brave Brunswicker rendered education difficult, and drove out, one by one,
many of the best teachers. Soldiers who think too much make
bad machines. It was the father of the present Duke of Cam
bridge who publicly expressed his disbelief in 1844—5, of the
failure of the potato crop in Ireland, “ because he had always
found the potatoes at his own table very good 1”
For many years her Majesty’s most constant attendant has
been a Scotsman, John Brown. This person so seldom leaves
her Majesty thatfit is said that some years since the Queen in
sisted on his presence when diplomatic communications were
made to her Majesty ; and that, when escorting the Queen to
Camden House, on a visit to the ex-Emperor Napoleon, Mr.
Brown offered her his arm from the carriage to the door.
Afterwards, when an idiotic small boy—armed with a broken
pistol, loaded with red flannel, and without gunpowder—made a
sham attack on her Majesty, Mr. Brown courageously rushed
to the Queen’s aid, and has since received a medal to mark his
valour.
�102
. The House of Brunswick.
For many years her Majesty has taken but little part in the
show ceremonials of State. Parliament is usually opened and
closed by commission—a robe on an empty throne, and a speech
read by deputy, satisfying the Sovereign’s loyal subjects. It is,
however, the fact that in real State policy her interference has
been most mischievous, and this especially where it affected her
Prusso-German relatives. In the case of Denmark attacked by
Prussia and Austria, and in the case of the Franco-Prussian
War, English Court influences have most indecently affected
our foreign relations.
Her Majesty is now enormously rich, and—as she is like her
Royal grandmother—grows richer daily. She is also generous,
Parliament annually voting her moneys to enable her to be so
without touching her own purse.
It is charged against me that I have unfairly touched private
character. In no instance have I done so, except as I have
found the conduct of the individuals attacked affecting the
honour and welfare of the nation. My sayings and writings are
denounced in many of the journals, and in the House of Lords
as seditious, and even treasonable. My answer is, that fortu
nately, Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall heard “ Not Guilty” given
as the shield against a criticism which dared to experiment on
persecution. In case of need, I rely on a like deliverance. I
I do not pretend here to have pleaded for Republicanism; I
have only pleaded against the White Horse of Hanover. I ad
mire the German intellect, training the world to think. I loathe
these small German breast-bestarred wanderers, whose only
merit is their loving hatred of one another. In their own land
they vegetate and wither unnoticed ; here we pay them highly
to marry and perpetuate a pauper prince-race. If they do
nothing, they are “ good.” If they de ill, loyalty gilds the vice
till it looks like virtue.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The impeachment of the House of Brunswick
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd. ed. rev. and largely re-written
Place of publication: London
Collation: iv, 102 p. ; 18 cm.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4938
Subject
The topic of the resource
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The impeachment of the House of Brunswick), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
House of Hanover
Monarchy
Republicanism