Volume I Part 21 (1/2)
(Signed) ”RICHARD CROFT.”
”November 10th, 1817.”
COPY OF A LETTER FROM QUEEN CHARLOTTE TO DR. CROFT.
”We are sensible how much it were to be desired that the obligations provided for could have been traced without the necessity of our writing. But we are yet more sensible how much it is our duty to promote the happiness of our most dear and most beloved son, who so justly deserves the efforts which we make for him. Whatever price will cost our tender love, we shall at least have the comfort, in the melancholy circ.u.mstance of this juncture, which our kingdom most justly laments with us, to give to our subjects a successor more worthy of the possession of our crown, either partly or wholly, than the detested daughter of our dearest brother, who, by her conduct, has brought disgrace upon our royal house, and whom now we will, for us, and our descendants, without difference of the substance of blood and quality, that she shall at all events be estranged from us and our line for ever.
To this end, we believe the method concerted by our faithful friends at Trieste is the most effectual to ensure it, not by divorce; be it by whatever means which may seem effectual to our friends, to whom we grant full power in every thing, as if we ourselves were present, to obtain the conclusion we so much desire; and whosoever shall accomplish the same shall be placed in the immediate degree with any peer of our kingdom, with fifty thousand pounds, which we guarantee to our worthy friend, Sir Richard Croft, on whom we can rely in every thing,--his services being considered unavoidable on this occasion. And for the better security of all, we promise the bearer hereof, being in every part furnished with sufficient power to write, sign, and secure, by letter or any other obligation, in our name, and which is to be delivered to Sir Richard Croft before his departure from London,--reminding him of his own engagements to the secrecy of this also,--whereunto we put our name, this 12th day of November, 1817.
”Let him be faithful unto death.
(Signed) ”C. R.”
Who can peruse these letters, and the particulars with which they are accompanied, without being shocked at the dark and horrible crime proved to have been committed, as well as those deep-laid plans of persecution against an innocent woman, which they unblus.h.i.+ngly state to have had their origin in the basest of motives,--to gratify the vindictive feelings of her heartless and abandoned husband! It must appear surprising to honourable minds that these atrocities did not find some one acquainted with them of sufficient virtue and nerve to drag their abettors to justice. But, alas! those who possessed the greatest facilities for this purpose were too fond of place, pension, or profit, to discharge such a duty. Queen Caroline, at this period, resolved to ask for a public investigation of the causes and attendant circ.u.mstances of the death of her daughter, and expressed her determination to do so in the presence of several n.o.blemen. Her majesty considered these and other important letters to be amply sufficient to prove that the Princess Charlotte's death was premeditated, and procured unfairly. Her majesty also knew that, in 1817, a most respectable resident of Claremont publicly declared that the regent had said, ”_NO HEIR OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE SHALL EVER SIT UPON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND!_” The queen was likewise _personally_ a.s.sured of the truths contained in the letter signed ”C. R.” dated 12th of November; for the infamous Baron Ompteda, in conjunction with another similar character, had been watching all her movements for a length of time, and they were actually waiting her arrival at Trieste, at the time before named, while every one knew they had a coadjutor in England, in the person of Souza Count Funshall!!!
Her majesty was also well acquainted with the scheme of the king or his ministers, that the former or the latter, or both conjointly, had caused a work to be published in Paris, the object of which was ”to set aside the succession of the Princess Charlotte and her heirs, (under the plea of the illegality of her father's marriage) and to supply the defect by the DUKE OF YORK!” Lord Moira offered very handsome terms to an author, of some celebrity, to write ”Comments in favour of this book;” but he declined, and wrote explanatory of the crimes of the queen and her family. This work, however, was bought up by the English court for seven thousand pounds! In this book of comments was given a fair and impartial statement of the MURDER OF SELLIS, and, upon its appearance, a _certain duke_ thought it ”wisest and best” to go out of this country! _Why_ the duke resolved to seek safety in flight is best known to himself and those in his immediate confidence; but to uninterested and impartial observers, such a step was not calculated to exonerate the duke's character. This took place at a very early period after the murder had been committed in the palace of St. James, and all the witnesses were then ready again to depose upon the subject, as well as those persons who had not been permitted to give their evidence at the inquest.
Another examination of the body of Sellis might have been demanded, though doubtless in a more public manner than before, as it was not supposed to be past exhumation! The people reasoned sensibly, when they said, ”The duke certainly knows something of this awful affair, or else he would cause the strictest inquiry, rather than suffer such a stain upon his royal name and character, which are materially injured in public opinion by the royal duke's refusal to do so, and his sudden determination to go abroad.” The duke, however, _did_ go abroad, and did not return until inquiry had, apparently, ceased.
Such were the remarks of Caroline, Queen of England, upon these serious subjects, of which she felt herself competent to say more than any other subject in the realm. The secret conduct of the government was not unknown to her majesty, and her sufferings, she was well aware, had their origin in STATE TRICK; while fawning courtiers, to keep their places, had sacrificed _truth_, _justice_, and _honour_. ”Then,” said the queen, ”can I wonder at any plan or plans they may invent to accomplish the wish of my husband? No; I am aware of many, very many, foul attempts to insult, degrade, and destroy me! I cannot forget the emba.s.sy of Lord Stewart, the base conduct of that most unprincipled man, Colonel Brown, and other unworthy characters, who, to obtain the favour of the reigning prince, my husband, condescended to say and do any and every thing prejudicial to my character, and injurious to my dignity, as the legitimate princess of the British nation; and for what purpose is this extraordinary conduct pursued? Only to gratify revengeful inclinations, and prevent my full exposures of those odious crimes, by which the honour of the family is and will ever be attainted! But,”
added her majesty, ”the untimely, unaccountable death of my Charlotte is, indeed, heavy upon my heart! I remember, as if it were only yesterday, her infant smile when first I pressed her to my bosom; and I must always feel unutterable anguish, when I reflect upon the hards.h.i.+ps she was obliged to endure at our cruel separation! Was it not more than human nature was able to endure, first to be insulted and deceived by a husband, then to be deprived of an only and lovely child, whose fondness equalled her royal father's cruelty? Well may I say, my Charlotte's death ought to be explained, and the bloodthirsty aiders in the scheme punished as they really merit. Who are these proud, yet base, tyrants,--who, after destroying the child, still continue their plans to destroy her mother also? Are they not the sycophants of a voluptuous monarch, whose despotic influence has for a long period destroyed the liberties and subverted the rights of the people, over whom he has exercised such uncontrouled and unconst.i.tutional power? And what is the MORAL character of these state hirelings, (continued the queen) who neither act with judgment, or speak with ability, but who go to court to bow, and cringe, and fawn? Alas! is it not disgraceful in the extreme?--are they not found debasing themselves in the most infamous and unnatural manner? From youth, have not even some of the late queen's sons been immoral and profane? Was not one of them invited to dinner, by a gentleman of the first rank, during his stay in the West Indies, and did he not so conduct himself before one of the gentleman's daughters, that his royal highness was under the necessity of making a precipitate retreat? Yet this outrage upon decency was only noticed by one fearless historian! And amongst the courtiers, where is morality to be found? Yet these individuals are the judges, as well as the jury, and are even empowered to a.s.sault, insult, and reproach the consort of the first magistrate, their sovereign the king! But he is in their power; guilt has deprived my lord and husband of all ability to set the perfidious parasites at defiance! If this were not the case, would his proud heart have allowed him to be insulted by my Lord Bloomfield, or Sir W.
Knighton? No; the answer must be obvious. Yet such was actually the fact, as all the _private_ friends of his majesty can testify. My honour is indeed insulted, and yet I am denied redress. I suspected what my fate would be when so much equivocation was resorted to during my journey to this country. I was not treated as any English subject, however poor and defenceless, ought to expect; far otherwise, indeed. I waited some months to see Mr. Brougham, and was disappointed from time to time, until I determined to return to England in despite of all obstacles. I reached St. Omers on the 1st of June; Mr. Brougham did not arrive until the evening of the 3rd; he was accompanied by his brother and Lord Hutchinson; and I judged from their conversation, that my only safety was to be found in the English capital. Propositions were made me, of the most infamous description; and, afterwards, Lord Hutchinson and Mr. Brougham said, 'they understood the outline of those propositions originated with myself.' How those gentlemen could indulge such an opinion for one moment, I leave the world to judge. If it had been my intention to receive fifty thousand pounds per annum to remain abroad, UNQUEENED, I should have reserved my several establishments and suite. I was requested to delay my journey until despatches could be received; but my impatience to set my foot once more on British ground prevented my acquiescence. I had been in England a very short time, when I was most credibly informed the cause for soliciting that delay; namely, that this government had required the French authorities to station the military in Calais, at the command of the English consul, for the express purpose of seizing my person, previous to my embarkation! What would not have been my fate, if I once had been in the grasp of the Holy Alliance!! This fact will satisfy the English people, that the most wicked plans were organized for my destruction. The inhabitants of Carlton House were all petrified upon my arrival, having been a.s.sured that I never should again see England, and that my legal adviser had supported the plan of my remaining abroad, and had expressed his opinion that I should accept the offer. It is also a solemn fact that, at that period, a PROCESS OF DIVORCE, in the Consistory Court in Hanover, was rapidly advancing, under the direction of Count Munster; and, as the king is there an arbitrary sovereign, the regal will would not have found any obstacle. When the day of retribution shall arrive, may G.o.d have mercy upon Lords Liverpool, Castlereagh, and their vile a.s.sociates,--even as they wished to have compa.s.sion upon their insulted and basely-treated queen! Had I followed my first opinion after these unhandsome transactions, I should have changed my counsel; but I did not know where to apply for others, as I too soon found I was intended to be sacrificed, either privately or publicly. Devotion in public characters is seldom found to be unequivocally sincere in times of great trouble and disappointment! What is a defenceless woman, though a queen, opposed to a despotic and powerful king? Alas! but subject to the rude ebullition of pampered greatness, and a mark at which the finger of scorn may point. Well may I say--
”Would I had never trod the English earth, Or felt the flatteries that grow upon it!
Ye have angels' faces; but heaven knows your hearts.
What will become of me now, wretched lady?
I am the most unhappy woman living.
No friend, no hope, no kindred, weep for me; _Almost no grave allowed me_! Like the lily, That once was mistress of the field, and flourished, I'll hang my head, and peris.h.!.+”
A very few weeks after making these remarks, her majesty, in correspondence with a friend, wrote as follows:
”I grow weary of my existence. I am annoyed upon every occasion. I am actually kept without means to discharge my honourable engagements. Lord Liverpool returns the most sarcastic replies (if such they may be called) to my notes of interrogation upon these unhandsome and unfair delays, as if I were an object of inferior grade to himself. I think I have sufficient perception to convince me what the point is to which the ministers are now lending their ready aid, which is nothing less than to FORCE ME TO RETURN ABROAD! This they never shall accomplish, so long as my life is at all safe; and in vain does Mr. WILDE press upon my notice the propriety of such a step.”
Illuminations and other rejoicings were manifested by the people at the queen's acquittal; but the state of her majesty's affairs, as explained in the above extract, were such as to preclude her receiving that pleasure which her majesty had otherwise experienced at such testimonies of the affectionate loyalty of the British people.
We must now proceed to the year
1821,
in which pains and penalties supplied the place of kindness, and the sword upheld the law! while men who opposed every liberal opinion hovered around the throne of this mighty empire. In the hardness of their hearts, they justified inhumanity, and delighted to hear the clank of the chains of slavery. They flattered but to deceive, and hid from their master the miseries of his subjects! This was base grovelling submission to the royal will, and not _REAL LOYALTY_; for loyalty does not consist in a slavish obedience to the will of a tyrannical chief magistrate, but in a firm and faithful adherence to the law and const.i.tution of the community of which we are members. The disingenuity of Lord Liverpool and his coadjutors, however, who were impelled by high church and high tory principles, wished to limit this comprehensive principle, which takes in the whole of the const.i.tution, and therefore tends to the conservation of it all in its full integrity, to the _person_ of the king, because they knew he would favour their own purposes as well as the extension of power and prerogative,--the largesses of which they hoped to share in reward for their sycophantic zeal, and their mean, selfish, perfidious adulation. With such views, the king's ministers represented every spirited effort in favour of the people's rights as originating in _disloyalty_. The best friends to the English const.i.tution, in its purity, were held up to the detestation of his majesty, as being disaffected to his person. Every stratagem was used to delude the unthinking part of the people into a belief that their only way of displaying loyalty was to display a most servile obsequiousness to the caprices of the reigning prince, and to oppose every popular measure. The ministers themselves approached him in the most unmanly language of submission, worthier to have been received by the Great Mogul or the Chinese emperor than the chief magistrate of a professedly free people. In short, George the Fourth only wished to be feared, not loved. The servile ministry fed this pa.s.sion, though they would have done the same for a Stuart, had one been in power. It was not the man they wors.h.i.+pped, but the _power_ he possessed to add to their _own dignity and wealth_! Let us not here be misunderstood. We are willing to award honour to the person of a man invested with kingly power, provided his deeds are in accordance with his duty, though not otherwise. A good king should be regarded with true and sincere affection; but we ought not to pay any man, reigning over a free country, so ill a compliment as to treat him like a despot, ruling over a land of slaves. We must, therefore, reprobate that false, selfish, adulatory loyalty, which, seeking nothing but its own base ends, and feeling no real attachment either to the person or the office of the king, contributes nevertheless, by its example, to diffuse a servile, abject temper, highly injurious to the spirit of freedom.
Though ”the bill” was now ingloriously abandoned by Lord Liverpool, the queen received but little benefit. Her majesty was even refused means to discharge debts unavoidably contracted for the bare support of her table and her household. As a proof of the economical style of her living, we witnessed one evening a party of friends sitting down to supper with her majesty, when a chicken at the top and another at the bottom of the table were the _only dishes_ set before the company. What a contrast this would have presented to the loaded tables, groaning under the luxurious display of provisions for gluttony, in the king's several residences, where variety succeeded variety, and where even the veriest menial lived more sumptuously than his master's consort!
On the 5th of May, the Emperor Napoleon Buonaparte expired at St.
Helena, having endured captivity, under the most unfavourable circ.u.mstances, and with a const.i.tutional disease, more than six years and a half. As we shall have occasion, in our second volume, to speak of this ill.u.s.trious man and his cruel treatment by our government, it would be unnecessary to say more in this place than merely give an outline of his extraordinary career. Napoleon was born at Ajaccio, the capital of Corsica, August 15, 1769; and was, consequently, fifty-two years of age, wanting three months, when he died. He was the eldest son of a lawyer, of Italian descent, and his family had pretensions to ancestry of high birth and station in Italy. He was educated in the _royal_ military school; and first attracted notice when, as an officer of engineers, he a.s.sisted in the bombardment of Toulon in 1793; next signalized himself by repressing an infuriated mob of Parisians in 1795, which caused his promotion to the command of the army of Italy; was made first consul in 1799; elected emperor in 1804; ”exchanged” the sceptre of France and Italy for that of Elba (so it was expressed in the treaty of Fontainbleau) on the 11th of April, 1814; landed at Cannes, in Provence, on the 1st of March, 1815; entered Paris triumphantly, at the head of the French army, a few days afterwards; fought the last fatal battle of Waterloo on the 18th of June in the same year; abdicated in favour of his son; threw himself upon the generosity of the English, through promises made to him by Lord Castlereagh; was landed at St. Helena on the 18th of October, 1815; and died as before stated, a victim to the arbitrary treatment of our government, which we shall presently prove.