Volume I Part 17 (2/2)
The year
1818
was a dark and troubled period,--a period of great private distress,--so that the minds of men were bent with more acerbity than usual upon the redress of public grievances. The country, borne down by debt, hara.s.sed by taxation, which had no longer for its excuse a monopoly of commerce, looked naturally enough to the source from which these calamities had flowed. They found the theory and the practice of the const.i.tution at variance, and hearing they had a right to be taxed by their representatives, they thought it hard and unjust that over the great majority of those who taxed them they had no controul. Retrenchment and economy were what they required. They considered parliamentary reform would be the means of producing economy and retrenchment. Public meetings in favour of parliamentary reform were, therefore, held, resolutions in favour of it pa.s.sed, and pet.i.tions in favour of it presented to the two houses of parliament; the energies of a free people were roused, and great excitement prevailed. When a country is thus agitated, a minister must resist with vigour, or yield with grace.
Unjust and violent demands should be met with resistance; but sober and legitimate requests, with concession. When weakly opposed, they are obtained by immediate violence; successfully refused, they are put off for a day, or postponed for a week or a year; but they are not got rid of. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, however, were vain enough to think otherwise.
Parliament was opened by commission in January. The speech referred to the continued indisposition of his majesty, and the death of the Princess Charlotte; but without promising an inquiry into the _cause_ of her untimely end! An address was voted in the Commons' House, according to custom, though Sir Samuel Romilly was not wanting in his expressions of severe opposition to the course ministers were pursuing. He stated, ”that the despotic conduct of the ministry had produced in the minds of the people a determination to withstand any further infringement upon their rights and privileges.”
Totally regardless of the sufferings of an over-burdened people, however, and during the very heavy and calamitous sorrows of the middle and lower cla.s.ses, the chancellor of the Exchequer had the effrontery to move ”that one million of money be raised for the purpose of supplying the deficiency of places of wors.h.i.+p belonging to the establishment, by building new churches and chapels of ease, where the increase of population rendered it needful.” How applicable are the words of Tartuffe to the advocates of this measure! ”With one hand, I have encouraged spies, suborned perjury, and committed murders; and with the other, built churches,--_but not with my own money_!” The bill pa.s.sed, and an extra ”plume of worldly-mindedness” was consequently placed in the cap of hypocrisy! Oh! that the pure religion of our Saviour should be thus perverted! His kingdom was not of this world, neither did he luxuriate in the ”good things” of the earth. Did he wear lawn sleeves and a mitre? Did he loll in gaudy carriages, and look down with supercilious contempt on his poorer brethren? Did he require _theatres_ for his churches, or _perfumed_ divines to preach his gospel? Did he interfere with political matters, and exert his energies to enslave the people? We leave these questions to be answered by those locusts of the land, commonly called _bishops_ of the _established_ church; at the same time we call upon them to reflect, whether, if hereafter they should feel inclined to recall the opportunity of conciliating the respect of the country, they will not have the misfortune of finding it much too late!
If our readers were to look over the singular parliamentary proceedings at this gloomy period of our history, they would be forcibly struck with the littleness, servility, and the utter want of intellectual calibre, so fully set forth in the characters of those who conducted the solemn mockery of legislation. The most unjust and arbitrary laws were put in force, and the public money allowed to be squandered, without the least inquiry. As a proof of this last remark, we need only mention the fact of _ninety thousand pounds_ being voted for the department of the ”Master of the Horse,” who kept thirty saddle and twenty-eight carriage horses for the use of his majesty, yet the king had never been out of the castle for more than seven years! This disgraceful squandering of money was carried on, too, when honest citizens and affectionate fathers were incapable of providing bread for themselves and families! Indeed, Lord Liverpool seemed resolved to push the country to its utmost verge, by proposing and sanctioning every expensive outlay. He was, with Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth, the author of many plans to perplex, impoverish, and subdue the people, in which plans the _bishops_ most zealously a.s.sisted. Every contrivance that had the sanction of the queen was sure to be _well-managed_, till Justice herself was set at open defiance.
Our readers will recollect our former statements respecting the Princess Charlotte, and we think the circ.u.mstance we are now about to relate will not operate against the proofs we have adduced concerning her untimely end.
Dr. Sir Richard Croft, the accoucheur of that lamented princess, had been engaged to attend the lady of the Rev. Dr. Thackeray, at her house, 86, Wimpole-street, Cavendish-square. Sir Richard went there on Monday, the 9th of February, and remained in attendance until Thursday morning, at eleven o'clock, when, finding his continued presence unnecessary, he went out for a short time to fulfil his other engagements. An apartment on the floor above that occupied by Mrs. Thackeray was appointed for the residence of Sir Richard. In this chamber, there were two pistols belonging to Dr. Thackeray, hanging within the reach of Dr. Croft. Sir Richard retired to bed at half-past twelve, and about one, Dr. Thackeray heard a noise, apparently proceeding from the room occupied by Dr.
Croft, and sent a female servant to ascertain the cause; she returned, saying, ”the doctor is in bed, and I conceive him to be asleep.” A short time after, a similar noise was heard, and the servant was sent again.
She rapped at the door, but received no answer. This circ.u.mstance created alarm; in consequence of which, the door of his apartment was broken open. Here an awful spectacle presented itself. The body of Sir Richard was lying on the bed, shockingly mangled, his hands extended over his breast, and a pistol in each hand. One of the pistols had been loaded with slugs, the other with ball. Both were discharged, and the head of the unfortunate gentleman was literally blown to pieces.
On the inquest, Doctors Latham and Baillie, and Mr. Finch, proved that the deceased had, since the death of the Princess Charlotte, laboured under mental distress. He had frequently been heard to say, that ”this lamentable occurrence weighs heavily on my mind, and I shall never get over it.” Mr. Finch said, he was well aware that the deceased had been labouring under derangement of intellect for a considerable time past; and he should not have reposed confidence or trust in him on any occasion since the lamented catastrophe alluded to. The jury returned a verdict, ”that the deceased destroyed himself while in a fit of temporary derangement.”
During the inquest, the newspaper reporters were denied admission, which circ.u.mstance gave rise to various rumours of a suspicious tendency. This was certainly an unconst.i.tutional act; but we will, as honest historians, speak candidly upon the subject. Delicacy to surviving friends must not prevent our detail of facts.
It will appear evident, then, that Sir Richard had not been perfectly sane since the ever-to-be-regretted fatal event at Claremont. Was it not therefore astonis.h.i.+ng, that his professional as well as other friends, who were _suspicious_, if not _fully aware_, of the doctor's derangement, should have been silent upon this important point, and have allowed Sir Richard to continue in the exercise of his professional practice? Did they not, by such silence, contribute to the peril of females in the most trying moment of nature's sorrow? The _disinterested_ reader will, doubtless, join us in our expressions of indignation at such wanton and cruel conduct.
The letter written to Sir Richard, by order of the prince, proves nothing but the folly of those who advised it. That letter was not calculated to remove any of those suspicions respecting the untimely death of the Princess Charlotte, which rolled like heavy clouds over the intelligent minds of the greater portion of the nation; neither was it likely to hush the spirit of _inquiry_, because its details were evidently meant to prevent any special explanation. The Marquis of Hertford, chamberlain to the regent, well knew, at this period, how to estimate _medicinal cause and effect_!
Presuming my Lord Bloomfield to have been an actor in ”the tragedy,” we cannot help thinking that his reward was more than adequate to the _services_ performed. His pension of twelve hundred pounds per annum was dated December, 1817. What extraordinary benefits had he rendered to this oppressed nation to merit such an income? We ought also to mention, that, after this period, we find his lords.h.i.+p named as ”envoy and minister-plenipotentiary in Sweden,” for which he received the annual sum of four thousand, nine hundred pounds, and, as colonel of artillery, one thousand and three pounds, making in all the enormous annual sum of seven thousand, one hundred, and three pounds!
These remarks are not intended to wound the feelings of private families; but are made with a view to urge a strict investigation into the cause of the Princess Charlotte's death. We are well aware that many _great_ persons have reason to fear the result of such an inquiry, yet the injured ought to have justice administered, even at the ”eleventh hour,” if it cannot sooner be obtained. Many a murderer has been executed twenty, or even thirty, years after the commission of his crime!
Though at this time ministers had a parliament almost entirely devoted to their wishes, there were a few members of it who vigorously opposed unjust measures, and they could not always carry their plans into execution. The amount solicited for the Duke of Clarence upon his intended marriage with the Princess of Saxe Meiningen is a proof of this; for, although the regent sent a message to the House to accomplish this object, it was at _first_ refused, and the duke did not gain his point till a considerable time afterwards.
In this year, the Duke of Kent was united to a sister of Prince Leopold.
In September, while most requisite to her party, the queen was taken ill. Bulletin followed upon bulletin, and the disorder was reported to increase. Some of the public papers announced, that her majesty had expressed an ardent desire to witness a _reconciliation_ between the Prince and Princess of Wales, as she imagined her dissolution was now near at hand. The report, however, was as false as it was unlikely; for, only a month before this period, _spies_ had been despatched to obtain witnesses, _of any description_, against the honour of the princess, by which means her enemies hoped to accomplish their most ardent desires.
Queen Charlotte's _conscience_ was not of a penetrable nature as her bitter enmity to the Princess of Wales continued even to her death!
With her majesty, it had ever been an invariable maxim, that ”might const.i.tutes right;” but the reflections of her mind, while surveying the probability of a speedy dissolution, must have been of a complexion too dreary to be faithfully pictured. She,--who had been the arbitress of the fates of nations, whose commands none dared dispute or disobey, and at whose frown numberless sycophants and dependents trembled,--was now about to face the dread enemy of mankind! The proud heart of Queen Charlotte must have been humbled at the thought of meeting HER Judge, who is said to be ”no distinguisher of persons.”
During her indisposition, the queen seemed much impressed with the idea that she should recover, and it was not till the 2nd of November that the physicians deemed it requisite to acquaint the queen of her danger.
The intelligence was given in the most delicate manner possible; yet her majesty exhibited considerable alarm at the information. It was pressingly hinted by the princesses to their mother, that the sacrament ought to be administered; but the queen positively refused the ”holy rite,” saying, ”It is of no use, as I am unable to take it.” One of the princesses immediately said, ”You do not mean to say that you MURDERED THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE?” ”No,” faintly answered the queen, ”BUT I CONNIVED AT IT!” We pledge ourselves to the truth of this statement, however incredible it may appear to those who have considered Queen Charlotte as ”a pattern to her s.e.x.” When the general servility of the press to royalty is taken into consideration, it is hardly to be wondered at that people are misinformed as to the real characters of kings and queens. Take the following false and most inconsistent eulogium, copied from the ”Atlas” newspaper, as an example of this time-serving violation of truth:
”Queen Charlotte's _constant attendance on the king_, and her GRIEF FOR THE LOSS OF HER GRAND-DAUGHTER, gained ground on her const.i.tution; and her majesty expired at Kew, on the 17th of November, 1818. _In all the relations of a wife and mother_, the conduct of the queen had been EXEMPLARY. Pious, without bigotry; virtuous, but not austere; serious, yet capable of the most perfect enjoyment of innocent pleasure; unostentatious, economical, adorned with all domestic virtues, and not without the charities of human nature, the queen had lived respected, and she died full of years and honour, regretted by her subjects, and most by those who knew her best. If her talents were not s.h.i.+ning, nor her virtues extraordinary, she never employed the first in faction, nor bartered the second for power. She was occasionally accused of political interference, by contemporary jealousy; but history will acquit her of the charge. She was a strict moralist, though her conduct to one part of her family (the heroic Caroline, we suppose) was perhaps more RIGOROUS than JUST. Her proudest drawing-room was the hearth of her home. HER BRIGHTEST GEMS WERE HER CHILDREN, (heaven save the mark!) _and her greatest ambition to set an example of_ MATRONLY VIRTUE _and feminine dignity to the ladies of her adopted country_!”
We should absolutely blush for the writer of this paragraph, did we think that he really _meant_ his panegyric to be taken _literally_. For the sake of _common honesty_, however, we will not suppose he so intended it; he must be some severe critic who adopted this style as the _keenest kind of wit_, for
”Praise undeserved is satire in disguise!”
<script>