Secret History of the Court of England Volume II Part 7

1827

exhibited the most lowering prospects; for when the people are suffering from oppressive enactments and injurious policy, the country cannot possibly wear a smiling countenance. Some of the milk-sop daily journals, notwithstanding, were very profuse in their complimentary language to royalty, and announced, as a matter of wonderful importance, the kindness and brotherly affection manifested by the king to the Duke of York, as his majesty had spent nearly two hours with his brother at the residence of his Grace of Rutland! What astonis.h.i.+ng kindness! what inexpressible condescension that a man should visit his own brother who was at the point of death! But the king's condescension did not put aside the visit of the general conqueror, Death! for the Duke of York expired, at the mansion of the before-named n.o.bleman, on the 5th of January, being then in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

If we were to form our judgment by the eulogiums bestowed on the character of the deceased duke, by the greater portion of the press, he was one of the brightest and most ill.u.s.trious ornaments of society. But such disgraceful truckling to royalty and the "powers that be" could only tend to degrade the national character in the consideration of all well-informed men, who would observe in such unmerited compliments a convincing proof that Truth was a creditor, whose claims were "more honoured in the breach than in the observance." To prove that our complaints on this head are well-founded, let our readers look over the following outline of the royal duke's virtues, which we copy from "Baldwin's Annual Register for the year 1827:"

"Never was the death of a prince accompanied by more sincere and universal regret; and seldom have the public services of one so near the throne BEQUEATHED TO THE COUNTRY SO MUCH SOLID AND LASTING GOOD, as resulted from his long administration of the British army. His private character, frank, HONOURABLE, and SINCERE, was formed to conciliate personal attachments; a personal enemy he had never made, and a friend once gained, he had never lost. Failings there were: he was improvident in pecuniary matters; his love of pleasure, though it observed the decencies, did not always respect the moralities, of private life; and his errors in that respect had been paraded in the public view by the labours of unwearying malice, and shameless unblus.h.i.+ng profligacy. But in the failings of the Duke of York, there was NOTHING THAT WAS UN-ENGLISH, NOTHING THAT WAS UN-PRINCELY.

"Never was man more easy of access, _more fair and upright in his dealings_, more affable, and even simple, in his manners. Every one who had intercourse with him was impressed with the openness, sincerity, and kindness, which appeared in all his actions; and it was truly said of him, that _he never broke a promise, and never deserted a friend_.

Beloved by those who enjoyed the honour of his private intercourse, his administration of a high public office had excited one universal sentiment of respect and esteem. In his youth, he had been tried as a general in the field. The campaigns in Flanders terminated in a retreat; but the duke,--unexperienced as he was, at the head of an army which, abounding in valour, had yet much to learn in tactics, and compelled to act in concert with allies who were not always either unanimous or decided,--displayed many of the qualities of an able general, and n.o.bly supported that high character for daring and dauntless courage which is the patrimony of his house. He was subsequently raised to the office of commander-in-chief of all his majesty's forces; that office he held for upwards of thirty-two years, and his administration of it did not merely improve, it literally created, an army. During his campaigns, he had felt keenly the abuses which disgraced its internal organization, and rendered its bravery ineffectual; he applied himself, with a soldier's devotion, to the task of removing them; he identified himself with the welfare and the fame of the service; he possessed great readiness and clearness of comprehension in discovering means, and great steadiness and honesty of purpose in applying them. By unceasing diligence, he gave to the common soldier comfort and respectability; the army ceased to be considered as a sort of pest-house for the reception of moral lepers; discipline and regularity were exacted with unyielding strictness; THE OFFICERS WERE RAISED BY A GRADUAL AND WELL-ORDERED SYSTEM OF PROMOTION, which gave merit a chance of not being pushed aside to make way for mere ignorant rank and wealth. The head as well as the heart of the soldier took a higher pitch; the best man in the field was the most welcome at the Horse Guards; _there was no longer even a suspicion that unjust partiality disposed of commissions_, or that _peculation was allowed to fatten upon the spoils of the men_; the officer knew that one path was open to all, and the private felt that his recompense was secure."

In a similar strain, the writer continues at a far greater length than our patience will allow us to quote. What man of understanding but must have felt disgusted at such a fulsome panegyric, which has not so much as a word of truth to recommend it! We despise the historian who sacrifices his integrity by an attempt to mislead posterity in this manner. It will, however, prove but an attempt; for will posterity overlook the general iniquitous and abandoned conduct of the royal libertine, both abroad and at home?--his cowardice and want of skill in the field?--his tergiversation to his creditors?--his infamous conduct with regard to certain foreign bondholders?--his notorious practices as a seducer?--his gross and unpardonable dereliction of duty at the Horse Guards?--his refusal to inquire into the conduct of the soldiers at the Manchester ma.s.sacre?--his shameful acceptance of ten thousand pounds a year of the public money, for only calling upon his dying father twice a week, which Earl Grey p.r.o.nounced to be "an insult to the people to ask it?"--his receiving this sum, and his going down to Windsor with a bible in his carriage, on _pretence_ of visiting his royal father after he had ceased to exist?--or his bigotted, ridiculous, and futile opposition to the claims of the Catholics? Will posterity, we repeat, forget to canva.s.s all this, and much more, of which the Duke of York was notoriously guilty?

If we pa.s.s over the meanness of the royal duke in accepting payment for visiting his own father, we are naturally led to inquire why this money was paid from the public purse, when the king was allowed sixty thousand pounds per annum for his private demands? Could this fund have been better applied than for the use of him for whom it was voted? If, therefore, it was considered necessary to pay a son for visiting his father, surely such money ought to have been applied for the purpose.

Was it justifiable, in times of universal suffering and distress, to raise from an over-taxed and over-burthened people such a sum unnecessarily, when there were funds from which it might have been taken,--funds which must else be diverted from the purpose of their creation, and pa.s.s into hands for whom they were not intended? Was it not an insult to the sense of the nation to debate about what might be the feelings of the sovereign, if he should recover from the gloomy condition into which he was plunged by the afflicting hand of providence, and find his money had been so appropriated? Would not his majesty's feelings have been more hurt, in such an event, by his knowing that a reward was necessary to induce a son to take care of his father?

Was there no delight in filial affection? Was not the sense of duty powerful enough? Was there no beauty in the common charities of our nature? No loveliness in grat.i.tude? Were the claims of veneration cold?--the warmth of regard frozen? With respect to the country, it presented a serious aspect. Admitting that his royal highness, in the discharge of his office, must attend twenty times a-year at Windsor, then he would be paid five hundred pounds a time for such attendance: a single journey would discharge the wages of a thousand labourers for a week, and the annual salary satisfy twenty thousand for the same period.

Would it not have been more beneficial to the state, more conducive to the happiness of society, to have expended the ten thousand pounds in some honourable employment, in the erection of some work of art, that would have called hundreds into action, who were steeped up to the neck in penury, and worn down to the earth by wretchedness, than in forming a salary for the royal duke for doing that which it was his bounden duty to perform? But even this view does not put the question in its broadest light. The sixty thousand pounds set apart as the annual privy purse of the king was now useless to his majesty, for he could no longer recognize his property, direct its disposal, or enjoy it. In fact, during the greater part of the Duke of York's guardians.h.i.+p, his father was a corpse! On what ground, on what pretence, then, could this wicked grant be continued, as well as the acc.u.mulation of the sixty thousand pounds a year, for the service of one who no longer needed either? Why, only for the purpose of feeding the inordinate profligacy of the Duke of York, and for the gratification of the regent's malice against his innocent, though calumniated, wife! What, also, will posterity think of Lord Castlereagh's conduct on this occasion, who proposed the disgusting grant to parliament? He stigmatized as infamous the refusal to grant from the _public_ purse that which the public _ought not to pay_; thus boldly cla.s.sing _virtue_ with _crime_,--pourtraying _prodigality_ to be right,--disguising _corruption_ under the mask of honour,--and attempting to cast the dark shade of _infamy_ over those few who were honest enough to oppose measures, which justice disapproved, and good policy condemned. By reducing such cases down to the level of common life, we the better discover their injustice and unfold their rapacity.

If the constable of a village possessed of a rental, arising from a parochial allowance for his services more than adequate to supply his wants, were deprived of reason, and rendered unfit for his office, and if one of his sons were to declare that he would not superintend the care of his infirm and aged father, unless he was allowed a salary for performing his duty, what would be thought of such a son? But if this son averred that he would not take this salary from his father's allowance, but would demand _it from the parish_, how severe would be the censure that would follow his footsteps, and imprint itself on his name! However difficult it may be found to believe, it is nevertheless a fact, that the Duke of York would only receive the said ten thousand pounds a year from the PUBLIC, and refused to take it from the privy purse of his father. But this privy purse being already drained by his royal elder brother, he had not the opportunity of taking it from that source! Ought the country to have been thus trifled with and plundered, when it was writhing under general distress and an immense load of taxation,--taxation produced by bestowing unmerited pensions and unnecessary salaries? But ministers imagined, that when their countrymen became impoverished, their spirits would get depressed, and their liberties fall an easier prey to their pecuniary plunderers. But why were not bolder exertions made to defeat this grant by those members of the House of Commons who were in the habit of talking loudly of their patriotism? Why was not the unblus.h.i.+ng audacity of ministers and their time-serving tools put to the test? Why were they not told that, among all the distressing periods of our history, not one could be mentioned in which the people were less able to sustain any additional burthens,--not one in which it would have been more indecorous, disgraceful, and unfeeling than at that juncture? Why did they not represent how much better it were that a son should pay to his father the attentions dictated by nature, without fee or reward, than that, oppressed as the community already was with the failure of trade and the expenses of government, another s.h.i.+lling of taxation should be added to their burthens? Why did they not ask the Treasury Bench with what face it could talk of retrenchment and economy, while it augmented the weight by which the country was borne down? When we reflect on the scandalous meanness that turned so many poor clerks adrift, while it kept safely floating in the harbour of ease and plenty, men who were doing so little for the public service,--when we consider this, and add to it the circ.u.mstance of the Duke of York's unconscionable grant,--when we place together the wretchedness of the ministry's savings, and the enormity of their waste,--our indignation rises at the injustice. We feel that we are Britons; for we feel that we detest such oppression and oppressors.

Our hearts are held to the patriotic _minority_ by a spontaneous and involuntary attachment, as sure and lasting as our hatred and disdain of that portion of parliament, whose only object in obtaining their seats, and only business in exercising their privileges, was to serve the interest of the ministry at the expense of the people, and to promote and help to perpetuate the mystery and the humiliation, the impoverishment and the slavery, it was their especial duty to prevent or diminish.

Of his royal highness' profligacy and neglect of duty, enough was proved in the exposures of Mrs. Clarke to satisfy the most scrupulous of their enormity. Of his utter recklessness of every honourable principle and disregard of virtue, many families, whose peace he was the cause of ruining, yet live to bear their afflicting testimony. Of his imbecility and cowardness in the field of battle, we need only mention his disastrous and disgraceful campaign in Holland, to call forth the indignation and contempt of every honest man, who must also feel shocked at the number of lives sacrificed to his royal highness' headstrong obstinacy. Of his achievements, particularly after his return from Germany, we believe they were chiefly confined to the parade in St.

James' park, and to the Tennis Court in James-street, with pretty frequent relaxation amongst the nymphs of Berkeley-row. Nevertheless, his royal parents early p.r.o.nounced him the "Hope of the Family;" and once, in an hour of festivity, when this prince was so intoxicated as to fall senseless under the table, his _elegant_ and _accomplished_ elder brother, with his gla.s.s in hand, standing over the fallen soldier, performed the ceremony of baptism, triumphantly and sarcastically exclaiming,

"HERE LIES THE HOPE OF THE FAMILY!"

Of his ridiculous and futile opposition to the Catholics, after times have given abundant proof. And of his getting into debt without the means of paying is a deplorable fact, to which his ruined creditors are even now (in 1832) freely testifying! Would it not have been thought treason had they suspected that the king's son,--the prince who, according to the writer in the Annual Register, "never broke a promise,"

"whose failings had nothing in them un-English or un-princely," and "who was fair and upright in his dealings,"--would have treated them as a common swindler, by getting their forbearance during his life, and dying without discharging his obligations? It is true that the duke left some property, which he consigned to his brother, the king, for the purpose of discharging his debts. We also know that the king promised to do so, and to supply any deficiency that might arise; but with what fidelity it was kept, the world is pretty well aware. The extortionate demands of a mercenary mistress were stronger in the eyes of George the Fourth than a solemn engagement made to a brother on his death-bed!

Though the executors of the late duke declared that his freehold and leasehold estates were mortgaged beyond their intrinsic value, nothing satisfactory was said about the jewels of his royal highness, which were valued a very few days after his death, and were calculated as being worth one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. These jewels, we are aware, were carried down to Windsor by desire of his majesty, but how they were disposed of remains to be explained. It was known that a large portion of these valuables had belonged to the d.u.c.h.ess of York in her lifetime, and as some legacies bequeathed by her royal highness at her demise have been paid since the death of her husband, it is inferred that the jewels have been, in some way or other, made available for that purpose. The legality of the application of any part of the personal property of the duke to purposes in which the interests of the creditors at large have not been consulted is, however, very questionable. Some part of the duke's property was bequeathed to his sister Sophia; but how far such a bequest was consistent in a man overwhelmed in debt, or how any honourable woman could accept from a brother that which was not his to give, is a matter totally irreconcileable with our notions of justice and fair dealing. One of these said jewels was also bestowed on the king's mistress, which, whenever and wherever it is recognized, cannot possibly add any l.u.s.tre to her corpulent charms.

The Duke of York was _elected_ Bishop of Osnaburgh when only _eleven months old_; but we leave the reader to judge how _capable_ a child of this age was to perform the duties of a bishop! Here, indeed, was a wanton disgrace inflicted on religion and the Established Church of England! If money had been wanted to purchase toys for this baby prince, could it not have been supplied from some more creditable source? We are here naturally led to inquire, who was the _former_ Bishop of Osnaburgh?

If this question should lead to inquiry among the friends of Truth and Justice, it may possibly be productive of much good to a CERTAIN INJURED AND PERSECUTED INDIVIDUAL.

Among the high church and high tory characters, his royal highness was held in much esteem for his PIETY! They boasted of his always travelling with a bible in one pocket of his carriage and a prayer-book in the other, but we know that the last journey he took, thus equipped, was on a Sunday, in order to make some bets on a race-course for the ensuing day!

In contemplating the enormous means possessed by his royal highness, we are at a loss to account for his dying so deeply in debt. We find him enjoying out of the taxes an annuity of twenty-six thousand pounds, a pension of seven thousand pounds, and an annuity of twelve thousand pounds sponged from the poor people of Hanover. Notwithstanding this income of forty-five thousand pounds a-year, and his immense receipts as commander-in-chief, colonel of regiments, &c. &c., such an embarra.s.sed, pauper-like state of existence has seldom been exposed,--head and ears in debt, and himself dying in another man's house, without a roof of his own to cover his shame! At his princ.i.p.al banker's, he had but a balance of forty-four pounds, fifteen s.h.i.+llings, and a penny, at his death. Like the old story of the many items of sack to one item of bread, we find that his royal highness' horses were more valuable than his books. But one of his disgraceful transactions more deeply concerns the public:--the scandalous grant of public land for a rent never paid, and an advance of forty-seven thousand pounds of the public money, by way of accommodation, upon a mortgage of land which already belonged to the people. Common honesty required that the late Tory ministers, in leasing public land to the duke, should exact its fair value; but, so far from it, the duke obtained an immediate advance of thirty thousand pounds, and eventually of forty-seven thousand pounds, upon his lease. Never was there a more flagrant exposure of the insolent impunity with which Tory ministers betrayed the public interests. It was the duty, _the sworn duty_, of the Tory commissioners of woods and forests, to let the public land upon the best terms. Instead of which, they not only granted a lease to a notorious insolvent, a man who for very many years had never paid his way,--a man so involved that sheriff's officers followed his carriage and seized it directly he got out of it,--but they granted this man a lease so much under its value that he immediately got thirty thousand pounds advanced upon it. In other terms, the public were defrauded of thirty thousand pounds; but this is purity compared to what follows. These Tory ministers advance forty-seven thousand pounds of the public money to the duke, knowing that he is insolvent and cannot pay the interest. Their mode of securing the princ.i.p.al is still more nefarious. Instead of pursuing the usual course of business, when ground landlords advance money to tenants covering their estates on building leases, they paid the money, not to those who built on the land, or not by instalments exactly as the land was covered, but to the duke, _who_ got people to build for him on credit, and never paid them. The crown, of course, seized for its claims of rent and loan, and, possessing itself of the property of the duke's creditors, the builders, left them the victims of their misplaced confidence in the royal honour,--of a man who once thought that his mere word "on the honour of a prince" was sufficient to paralyze the House of Commons in their inquiries into his malversation of office. Such a playing into the hands of the duke, whilst he was defrauding the confiding tradesmen and workmen, is monstrous. We ask a question, Were not sums of money clandestinely paid to the duke, and smuggled into the accounts of the Army Pay-office, and did not, on one occasion, one of the sworn commissioners, in examining and pa.s.sing the accounts of the paymaster-general, publicly declare, that the ministers who had signed the warrant for this illegal payment to the duke,--a payment without any vote of parliament,--deserved to be IMPEACHED?

From the above statement, it will be seen why the late Tory administration so resolutely resisted all attempts made in the House of Commons to obtain an annual statement of the land-revenue department.

The grant to the duke of a lease for sixty years of valuable mines in Nova Scotia, also appears to be a job infamous beyond any recent precedent. The public ought to have nothing to do with the private debts of this weak, bad man; and it should rest with the royal family whether they suffer the duke to go to his account, with all his imperfections on his head, as an insolvent, defrauding his creditors.

When the disreputable life of the duke is taken into consideration, what an insult was offered to the understandings of an informed people, at the command issued for all persons to robe themselves in garments of decent mourning, upon the demise of this son of Mars and Venus! The country, indeed, had more cause for rejoicing than mourning; as they had lost an enemy to every thing liberal and beneficial. "What!" said the inquiring citizen, "am I to put on the garb of sorrow when I have no cause to mourn? What was the Duke of York to me, or to my family?

Nothing less than an intruder upon our scanty means, and yet we are commanded, as good citizens and loyal subjects, to put ourselves and families into decent mourning?" But such was the order issued from the office of the Lord Chamberlain, and it was certainly complied with by all those who depended upon the favour of the court, and by persons who wished to be thought--_fas.h.i.+onable_! Happy, however, are we to know, that the sensible and independent portion of the nation viewed such an absurd order with the contempt it merited. Had the duke been a private gentleman, he would have had the exact portion of tears shed to his memory as he deserved,--would have been buried and forgotten, except by his creditors, who would scarcely have waited till the turf had covered him, before his house and effects would have been sold, his family turned into the street, and every one paid as much in the pound as his property would have allowed. But the adored of Mrs. Clarke, being the son of a king, no such insult was offered to his manes. His disappointed creditors were left nothing but promises for the articles with which he had been so lavishly supplied; and some of these broken-hearted men, we can attest from personal knowledge, were afterwards reduced to the greatest possible distress, while others have closed their miserable days in a parish work-house,--martyrs to the broken faith of his royal highness the Duke of York, of whom Sir Walter Scott impiously said, in the language of Scripture "There has fallen this day in our Israel, a prince, and a great man!" How forcibly the language of Shakespeare applies here:

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul, producing holy witness, Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,-- A goodly apple rotten at the heart; O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Indeed, the whole panegyric which follows the quotation from Scripture is of that description which is sure to raise for its author a monument, whereon will be engraved, "Grovelling servility to royalty, and a mean sacrifice of public duty at the altar of private friends.h.i.+p." The following brief extract will be sufficient to establish the justness of our censure:

"The RELIGION of the Duke of York was SINCERE. His family affections were strong, and the public cannot have forgotten the _pious_ tenderness with which he discharged the duty of watching the last days of his royal father. No pleasure, no business, was ever known to interrupt his regular visits to Windsor, where his unhappy parent could neither be _grateful_ for, nor even be sensible of, his unremitted attentions.

(!!!) His royal highness prepared the most splendid victories our annals boast, by an unceasing attention to the character and talents of the officers, and the comforts and health of the men. Terms of service were fixed for every rank, and neither influence nor _money_ was permitted to FORCE any individual forward. (!!!) It has never been disputed(?) that, _in the field_, his royal highness displayed INTELLIGENCE,(!) MILITARY SKILL,(!!) and his family attribute, the most UNALTERABLE COURAGE.(!!!) If a tradesman, whose bill was unpaid by an officer, thought proper to apply to the Horse Guards, the debtor received a letter from HEADQUARTERS, requiring to know if there existed any objections to the account, and failing in rendering a satisfactory answer, he was put on stoppages until the creditor's demand was satisfied. Repeated applications of this kind might endanger the officer's commission, _which was then sold for the payment of his creditors_."

While Sir Walter enlarges upon the duke's VIRTUES, (virtues, indeed!) in a similar strain to the above, he uses the most palliative language to gloss over his notorious vices. Not a syllable does he say about his royal highness' OWN CREDITORS BEING LEFT UNPAID, nor does he advocate the propriety, that the commander-in-chief ought to have been "put on stoppages until HIS numerous creditors were satisfied," or that the several commissions he held in the British army should have been "sold for the payment of HIS creditors!" In eulogizing the "military skill, intelligence, and unalterable courage of his royal highness," all allusion to the duke's _precipitate flight from Lisle_ is carefully omitted, and that Houchard, the governor of that fortress, lost his head for not driving him into the sea, which it was proved he might easily have done, through the duke's obstinacy and WANT of _military skill_!!!

Are the very clear statements and unshaken evidence of Mrs. Clarke also to be set at nought, because a small majority of the most venal House of Commons of any in our history thought proper to acquit his royal highness from her charges? Was not every honourable man in England convinced of their verity? And did not universal execration COMPEL the commander-in-chief TO RESIGN, in defiance of that contemptible and loathed majority? Yet all these well-known FACTS are so smoothed down by misrepresentation and shuffling excuses, that his royal highness is actually made to appear a MARTYR TO POPULAR OPINION!!! When speaking of the duke's "_pious_ attentions" to his royal father, the "celebrated novel-writer" says not a syllable about the infamy of receiving ten thousand pounds a-year for such unnecessary services,--unnecessary, because, at their commencement, they were only formally bestowed for the sake of gain, and not through a sense of filial duty; and, for a greater part of the period, they were less necessary, for _forms_ could be of no use to a _dead monarch_!

We entertain the highest possible opinion of Sir Walter Scott's literary talents, which makes us the more regret that so fair a fame should be clouded by this incontestable proof of his want of principle and his total disregard of historical verity. We do not wish to quarrel with the talented knight's POLITICS or his _grat.i.tude_ to George the Fourth for bestowing on him a t.i.tle, which adds little to the character of any man of sterling worth, and nothing to him who was before a stranger to virtuous principles; but we do not like to see the historian's glorious s.h.i.+eld--TRUTH--broken in pieces by bespattering a public defaulter with praises, when such a man deserved nothing but the contempt and detestation of all who regard upright dealings. Let not Sir Walter Scott, then, thus attempt to mislead the people of England in the character of their princes, by palliating their public abuses, and varnis.h.i.+ng their private misconduct; nor let him disseminate doctrines unnatural, nonsensical, and injurious to the rights of human nature.

History is materially injured when the waters of truth are corrupted by infusing into their channel the flatterer's poison. Such a vile cause cannot be maintained without having recourse to falsehood, and the cowardly concealment of conscious malversation. Honest purposes love the light of truth; and the friends of liberty and man become justly alarmed whenever they see the press disgraced by its perversion. We are well aware that the Tories were lavish in their rewards to obsequious political writers, and that needy, unprincipled, and aspiring persons, to receive the infection, were always at hand. But can any man be really great and honourable, can he be a patriot or a philanthropist, can he be a zealous and sincere friend to law, order, and religion, who thus hesitates not to break down all the fences of honour, truth, and integrity? Did Sir Walter Scott, when he penned the character of the late Duke of York, mean to proclaim to the world that vice is virtue, guilt is innocence, cowardice is bravery, swindling is correct dealing?--or that conscience is but a name, and honour a phantom? Since the art of printing was invented,--since the era when Ignorance and Superst.i.tion were first driven before the light of Reason, exhibited in the circulation of a free press,--we unhesitatingly affirm there has never been published an eulogium so totally at variance with fact as that written by the author of "Waverly" on his royal highness of York.

In sober reason and in the language of common sense, we would calmly appeal to the dispa.s.sionate reflection of every thinking Englishman, whether such a prost.i.tution of truth and genius is becoming the proud fame of Sir Walter Scott? The power of such a celebrated writer over general opinion is too considerable not to deeply deplore the certainty of his misguiding some portion of the public by the apparent sincerity of his mis-placed eulogium, and by his neglecting to lead his readers to a path of just thinking. Scorning alike the meanness of flattery and the crime of delusion, we have not hesitated to deliver our unbia.s.sed sentiments on the character of the Duke of York, (which are certainly more in accordance with facts) with that freedom to which we deem the historian to be justly ent.i.tled. We have not allowed the example of Sir Walter Scott to interfere with our fixed purpose,--that of "AWARDING HONOUR ONLY WHERE HONOUR IS DUE!"

It is a melancholy reflection that so little protection or encouragement should have been afforded to writers of strict independence and integrity, more particularly about the period of the Duke of York's death, when Toryism was flouris.h.i.+ng in the plenitude of its glory and its power. The former patriotic spirit of literary men had almost disappeared before ministerial bribery; and to write with that honesty and boldness of purpose which JUNIUS wrote was a matter of rare occurrence; and when any author did venture to imitate that great benefactor of mankind, his temerity was sure to call down the vengeance of the powerful, and, too frequently, without awakening the sympathy of the public. Had those n.o.ble authors, who once defended the cause of freedom and truth, been living at this period, how would they have despised such instances of the degradation of talent as those we have quoted! Could they, for a moment, have risen from their graves, what would have been their astonishment at such a perversion of the blessings of the press? In a country professing to be free, and boasting of its rights and privileges, it was surely natural to expect, that he who advocated its best and dearest interests would be certain of its ardent support; that whoever devoted his time and talent to the exposition of public abuses would be an object of general esteem, and enjoy the protection of the PEOPLE, at least, if not of the government. But such was seldom the case; and hence but too many writers resigned their probity, and betrayed the public, by making ministerial delinquencies appear as good government, and royal vices as elegant pastimes and gentlemanly exploits! Most of the daily and other periodical publications were in the pay of government, and they scrupled not to deny the most glaring truths, if, by so doing, they could please their patrons.

We deeply regret that so many could be found to wage war against the sound principles of the English const.i.tution, and so few that invariably adhered to the cause of liberty and justice. That writer, who is prompted by the pure love of his country's weal, and acknowledging no party, seeks no adherents but those who are friends to her sacred cause, will look back upon such a debased state of the press with mingled feelings of indignation and pity. Be it ever remembered, that the general corruption of that powerful engine is always first aimed at by a minister who intends the slavery of the people. Had public writers but maintained one grand universal adherence to the broad and general light of TRUTH, the people of England would never have been burthened by such men as Liverpool, Londonderry, and Sidmouth; nor would they have had to endure their present immense load of taxation. Whenever the people are properly united, and headed by an honest press, not all the standing armies of their enemies will prevent them from obtaining their const.i.tutional rights. But when the people stand apart from each other, and when ministers can obtain the services of venal writers, the star of liberty grows dim, and patriotism becomes dangerous and obsolete.

The Earl of Liverpool was prevented from taking his seat at the head of the government at this period, by a sudden attack of paralysis. His cabinet were consequently thrown into great disorder and contention. The united influence of Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, and Mr. Peel, however, proved inefficient to prevent the choice of prime minister falling on Mr. Canning. Many discussions arose upon this change of administration, and the frequent quarrels in the cabinet were of a nature not very reputable to the members composing it. Within forty-eight hours after Mr. Canning had received his majesty's commands to form a ministry, no less than seven of the former leading members resigned office, through vexation and jealousy at his appointment. The inconsistent Lord Bexley, however, considered that _second_ thoughts were best, and retracted his resignation. Sir John Copley was created Baron Lyndhurst, and appointed Lord High Chancellor, upon the resignation of the Tory veteran Lord Eldon, who, though he had for so many years been ama.s.sing enormous wealth, was now _mean_ enough to be an idle pauper upon the resources of our impoverished country for the annual income of four thousand pounds! His lords.h.i.+p had been for more than twenty years Speaker of the House of Peers, at a salary of three thousand pounds, and Lord Chancellor at fifteen thousand pounds per annum; while the salaries of the offices in his gift, in the legal department alone, amounted to more than forty-two thousand pounds per annum. The legal and ecclesiastical patronage at his disposal was also immense; yet this pretended _poor_ man would not retire without an ex-chancellor's salary! While "this keeper of the king's conscience"

took especial care of his own purse, he did not forget to look after that of his family; and places, pensions, and church preferments were most bountifully heaped upon them.

In contemplating the long period of his lords.h.i.+p's enjoying the emoluments of his office, we are led to consider "the means whereby he got the office." His unmanly desertion of the virtuous cause of Queen Caroline was the princ.i.p.al, though not the only, reason of his rapid promotion. In this instance, he committed an indelible stain upon his integrity for the sake of obtaining patronage and wealth. Let the following pa.s.sage, dictated by this time-serving lawyer, when he advocated the Princess of Wales' cause against the Douglases, bear us out in the justness of our remarks:

"However Sir John and Lady Douglas may appear my ostensible accusers, I have _other enemies_, whose ill-will I may have occasion to FEAR, without feeling myself a.s.sured that it will be strictly regulated, in its proceedings against me, by the _principles of fairness and justice_!"

Who would suppose that boaster of "fairness and justice," Lord Eldon, one of the most forward of the professed friends of the Princess of Wales, could have proved so heartless and active an oppressor of Queen Caroline? We are forcibly reminded of two pa.s.sages of Scripture, which powerfully apply to his lords.h.i.+p's desertion from the path of honour in this instance; namely, the 2nd Book of Kings, ch. viii, v. 13, and the 2nd Book of Samuel, ch. xii, v. 7 and 8! Lord Eldon not only at that time, however, expressed his decided opinion that other enemies existed, but he afterwards named the very parties, and pointed out with what clearness and facility the offence might have been proved against them!

But his lords.h.i.+p soon afterwards _sneaked_ into lucrative office, and had something better to do for _himself_ than procuring justice for the injured, insulted, and persecuted Princess of Wales! Out upon such blood-suckers of their country, we say, and may their _crying_ professions of SINCERITY and CONSCIENTIOUS MOTIVES ever be viewed as the ravings of hypocrisy!

Mr. Canning's ministry proved but of short duration. Soon after his appointment to the premiers.h.i.+p, his health began to decline, and within four months he was numbered with the dead. This event took place on the morning of the 8th of August, and his remains were consigned to the tomb prepared to receive them, in Westminster Abbey, followed by a long procession of dukes, lords, and other great personages,--the admirers of his political principles.

In taking an impartial review of Mr. Canning's political career, we cannot help thinking that all his public acts were _aristocratical_, and afforded indubitable proof of his love of place. Like most men who have risen to great eminence, he owed much to chance. He was lucky in the time of his decease, and in the day of his deserting his old friends. To very few has it happened to be supported by a party as long as its support was useful, and to be repudiated by it when its affection would have been injurious. The same men who, as friends, had given him power,--as enemies, conferred on him reputation! But his name is not connected with any great act of legislation. No law will be handed down to posterity protected by his support. After generations will see in him a lamentable proof of prost.i.tuted talent, and little or nothing to claim their grat.i.tude. The memorialist may delight in painting the talents he displayed, but the historian will find little to say of the benefits he bestowed. Mr. Canning was very irritable and bold in his manners. He defended his conduct in the House and out of it; that is to say, he made some bitter speeches in parliament, and wrote three challenges, or demands for explanation: one to Mr. Hume, one to Sir Francis Burdett, and one to an anonymous pamphleteer. The author of this pamphlet was Mr.

(now Sir John Cam) HOBHOUSE, though the fact is little known; but, for some unexplained cause, the book was speedily withdrawn from publication. A few having been sold, however, we were fortunate enough to procure one, the following extracts from which may not prove unacceptable to our readers:

"SIR,--I shall address you without ceremony, for you are deserving of none. There is nothing in your station, in your abilities, or in your character, which ent.i.tles you to respect. The first is too often the reward of political, and frequently of PRIVATE, crimes. Your talents, such as they are, you have abused; and, as for your character, I know not an individual of any party, or in any cla.s.s of society, who would not consider the defence of it a paradox. Low as public principle has sunk, _you_ are still justly appreciated; and no one is deceived by _qualities_, which, even in their happiest exertions, are not calculated or employed to conciliate esteem.

"To what a state of degradation are we sunk, when a defendant is to be cheered into being a plaintiff; to be applauded when he a.s.saults the sufferings of the oppressed, and arraigns the motives of men of honour and unsullied reputation! You are yourself aware, sir, that in no other a.s.sembly in England would you have been allowed to proceed, for an instant, in so gross a violation of all decencies of life as was hazarded by that speech, which found a patient and a pleased audience in the House of Commons. Can there exist in that body,--composed as it undoubtedly is of men, who, in the private relations of life, are distinguished for many good qualities,--an habitual disregard of decency, a contempt for public opinion, an absurd confidence, either individually or in ma.s.s, to which, absolving themselves from the rules of common life, they look for protection against the censures of their fellow-citizens? Were it not for such a groundless persuasion, there is not a gentleman (for such a being is not quite extinct in parliament) who would not have thought himself compromised by listening to your insolent attacks upon the national character, and to a flashy declamation, which, from beginning to end, supposed an audience devoid of all taste, judgment, spirit, and humanity.

"I am at a loss, sir, to account for the insulting policy of your colleagues in office, who, though they take their full share with you in the public hatred, are far from being equal compet.i.tors for its contempt. Those worthies must have had some motive, deeper than their avowed designs, for entrusting their defence to such 'inept hands.' Were they afraid of your partially redeeming your character by silence? Were they resolved, that if you were yet not enough known, some decisive overt act should reduce you below the ministerial level? Did they suspect, that you were again willing to rebel or betray? How was it that you were selected for the odious and TREACHEROUS task of justifying the rigorous measures of the imbecile, but unfeeling, SIDMOUTH, directed as they were against the aged, the infirm, the powerless of his own countrymen? How was it that you were required to emerge from your suspected, though prudent, silence, in behalf of him whom you had first insulted by the offer of your alliance, then by your coa.r.s.e hostility, and, lastly, by the accepted tender of an insidious reconciliation?

"You know, sir, and the world should know, that when your seducer, Pitt, was tired of you, you offered yourself to this silly, vain man, who thought your keeping too dear at the proposed price, and accordingly declined the bargain. You know, and the world may remember, the immediate consequence of this slight of proffered service was your lampoons in parliament, your speeches in the papers,--I forget where they fell, but whether in one or the other, they were equally _unprepared_ and opportune; these, and other a.s.saults, manfully directed against those whose forbearance was the sole protection of your audacity, can hardly have slipped through the meshes of the ill-woven memories of your colleagues. Perhaps, then, it was intended to reduce you to irretrievable humiliation, and to fit you for the lowest agency, by making you the loudest encomiast of the most undefensible measure of him whom you have reprobated as the 'most incapable of all ministers, the most inept of all statesmen.' You have kissed the hand that chastised you, and have lost but few opportunities of testifying your FEIGNED REPENTANCE to him who commands you from that eminence, which you were adjudged incapable to occupy, even so as to save the few appearances required from ministerial manners.

"Your submission to Lord Castlereagh, tricked out, as he appears, in those decorations of fortune which might well deceive a vulgar eye, was not surprising: it was the natural deference of meanness to success. But it was not expected, even from your condescension, that the b.u.t.t of his party, the agent of that department which had, even in these times of peace, with infinite address, contrived to make the executive administration not only hateful but ridiculous, that the very minister who had no character for talents should be defended by him who had shewn himself unequal to the defence of his own. Your reply to those who spoke the language of their const.i.tuents, of unprejudiced Englishmen, of human nature itself, and who stepped forward to rescue the parliament from indelible disgrace, was such as is seldom hiccupped up from the Baccha.n.a.lian triumph of ministerial majorities.

"What, sir! one of the present cabinet dare to accuse any individual of too _much faith_ in common rumour or in proffered information? A member of that cabinet, whose _belief_ in the idle, malicious falsehoods of spies, pimps, bullies, and all the abandoned broken characters, whom their promises allured into perjury, has been proved by the verdict of juries, has been recorded in the courts, has been the object of general indignation, and, after having been the cause and excuse of a wanton attack on our liberties, has been judged by the cabinet itself so little qualified for examination that believing parliament has been instructed to indemnify the rogues who told the lies, and the fools who believed them. What! an apologist for the gulled, the gaping Sidmouth, to deprecate the indiscriminating reception of tales and tale-bearers? a defender of him who put his trust in Castles, who employed Oliver, and who, on the faith of atrocious fabrications, of which he was alike the encourager and the dupe, has persecuted and imprisoned, has fettered and fractured, and might have put to death, his fellow-countrymen, even to decimation.

"You tell us, you should have thought yourself '_a dolt and idiot_' to have listened for a moment to complaints against an agent of the home department, a runner of Bow-street, a gaoler's turnkey, or a secretary's secretary. Mighty well, sir! but let a runaway from the hulks, a convicted felon, tell you, that a bankrupt apothecary, a broken-down farmer, and a cobbler, are the centre of a widely-spread conspiracy, have formed and partially executed a plan for razing the kingdom, and for taking the Tower of London,--have provided arms, have published manifestoes; let the same respectable evidence impeach the loyalty of the n.o.bles and gentry in particular districts, and of the lower cla.s.ses in all; let this single felon a.s.sert that he is honest, and the majority of his countrymen are rogues,--you do not think YOURSELF A DOLT AND IDIOT!!! you do not think Lord Sidmouth a dolt and idiot for proceeding, chiefly upon such information, to hang, draw, and quarter the first individuals designated by this credible witness! But whatever you or your colleagues thought, the JURY did think the secretary of the home department a DOLT AND IDIOT, and shewed their opinion by their verdict. I will take leave to observe, that there is this difference between the credulity of such men as Mr. Lambton, and of such ministers as yourself and your colleagues: the former may interpose to save, but the consequence of the latter has been to destroy.

"To brand with the names of 'rebel and traitor' those whom you have been unable to prove rebellious and traitorous, is but in the ordinary course of official perseverance and incorrigible folly; but that you should presume to a.s.sail those unfortunate individuals, the victims of your own recorded credulity, by making a mockery of old age and of natural infirmities, which have been occasioned by your own injustice!!--such an outrage upon your audience--how is that to be accounted for? '_The revered and ruptured Ogden!!!_' This mad, this monstrous sally was applauded--was received with roars of laughter! and if there was a confession from some more candid lips, that such allusions were not 'quite in good taste,' an excuse was drawn from the _warmth_ of the debate, clear as it was, to those accustomed to your patchwork, that the stupid alliteration was one of the ill-tempered weapons coolly selected from your oratorical armoury.