plies to his father for assistance. The father's answer is, "Marry, and you shall be freed from your difficulties." At this period the young man, besides other indulgences, permits himself the luxury of two mistresses. In spite of the blandishments of these ladies, in spite of the love of what he terms liberty, the debts drive him to marriage. A wife is found and proposed to him-he accepts her. She is young, a stranger; about to be separated from her family, and to confide herself and her happiness to the guardianship of one whom she supposes to be a high-minded gentleman. It is requisite that this young and comparatively helpless stranger should be escorted to the house of her future husband, and that when there, she should have a number of female attendants. What would be said of any man in private life, who should choose for the escort of his bride one of his former mistresses; who should place that mistress as an attendant on his young wife; should point her out as a sort of instructress in the ways of her newlyacquired country? Besides having one mistress under the same roof with his wife, besides placing that mistress at his wife's table, he renews his former connexion with his second mistress, provides her with a splendid establishment, and for this second mistress completely separates himself within a few months after his marriage from the poor young woman, whom for his own selfish purposes he had made his wife. He does this on no pretext, but that of his own wishes. He does it openly and totally regardless of the misery he creates in the bosom of his innocent and cruelly-neglected wife. Now let it be remarked, that any man who had acted thus in private life would have been hooted out of society, while there are few epithets expressive of disgust and abhorrence, that would not have been used to characterize his conduct. It is customary to admit without dispute the claim that is generally made to politeness, as a quality peculiarly remarkable in the character of the late king. They who make the claim, and they who admit it, seem to have strange opinions on the subject of politeness. If the term be used merely to signify grace in making a bow, knowledge of the petty observances in fashionable life which mean nothing, but are employed only as a species of free-masonry to distinguish those who belong to the class, possibly, though here we are inclined to doubt, the king might have been polite,-but if by politeness is meant carefulness to render one another happy, in as far as petty observances and little services in society permit, if we mean watchfulness not to wound the feelings of others, an ever-wakeful desire to lend an aid to those who need it, to shield the weak, to gratify the wishes, to study the convenience, and to soothe the petty misfortunes of others, in short, if by politeness is intended a wish to make, and the making, the intercourse of life in as far as we are able a means of happiness, then it may be boldly asserted that the late king was not polite. To be polite in this sense a man must to a great degree cease to be selfish, but no act of the king's life seems to have been guided by any principle but that of self-gratification and to such lengths did this principle lead him, that in boyhood it made him brutal to his mistress; in manhood forgetful even of common decency to his wife. One of the grand tests ordinarily used to distinguish a polite and courteous gentleman is his treatment of women. But it is not merely in mannerly courtesy that he is distinguished,―a thousand observances of idle respect and mocking defer

ence will not atone for one insult, one act of ungenerous wanton forgetfulness. What artificial courtesy could so well distinguish the character of a man's mind, could so well lay bare his real feelings, and mark the worth of his so-styled polite observance, as the cruel insult, nay, brutality of making a strumpet the companion of his wife? 'Tis strange that such things should be before the public, and at the same time that nauseous panegyrics respecting the finest gentleman in Europe' should be a moment tolerated. Excusing for an instant his neglect of his wife, excusing his making her a sacrifice to his convenience, excusing his having two mistresses and his not discarding those mistresses, but superadding a wife to his establishment,—waiving all mention of these grave delinquencies, why, it may be asked, not treat that wife with decent respect? Why make his house a brothel, and put his young wife into it? Why, if his own extravagancies led him to marry, should he make his wife bear all the inconveniencies and miseries of the union?-A generous man would have said, My own folly has led to this painful situation,-it is but just, therefore, that I should bear the burthen, the union is not agreeable to me, but nevertheless I alone ought to suffer the misery resulting from it, thus paying the price of my own folly and extravagance. Others, and those innocent, ought not to be punished for my misdeeds.' He would consequently have lived in harmony with his wife and behaved to her with kindness and respect. If his love for his mistress had been too strong to be resisted, one commonly careful, one but ordinarily alive to the feelings of others—would at least have practised secrecy and decorum in the illicit connexion: thus shielding his poor wife from the misery of knowing his criminal faithlessness. But no, such was not the mode in which the prince was accustomed to reason. Self was his god, and self alone he worshipped. It was convenient to have his mistress in his own house, therefore he had her there. It would have required care and some little trouble to have practised secrecy, therefore he blazoned his neglect. It was gratifying to his vanity to have a dashing establishment for his second mistress, Mrs Fitzherbert, therefore he had one. But let any father put the question to himself,- What would be my feelings if my daughter were treated thus? What should I say of him, being of my own rank in life, who thus cruelly neglected and wantonly insulted her?' If the conduct be revolting in private life, by what art can it be extenuated, when the parties are a prince and princess? If the daughter of a private gentleman, if the daughter of a peasant would be sheltered from such treatment by the indignant voice of public opinion, is there any reason why the daughter of a duke should not be equally defended? If the rude hind, who should have been equally reckless in his behaviour, would have been visited by the execration of his people, what is the circumstance which exonerates the conduct of a prince from equal animadversion?"

In 1803, on this country being threatened with invasion, the prince made a spirited effort to obtain a higher and more responsible appointment than that which he held in the army as colonel of the 16th regiment of light dragoons. His application did not meet with that attention which he expected, and on his further importunity, it was intimated to him by Mr Addington, that "the king's opinion being fixed, he desired that no further mention should be made to him upon the subject."

The prince now addressed a very energetic and dutiful letter to his father, under date the 6th of August, 1803, in which, after noticing the previous correspondence with Mr Addington, he again urged his request in the following terms: "I ask to be allowed to display the best energies of my character,-to shed the last drop of my blood, in support of your Majesty's person, crown, and dignity; for this is not a war for empire, glory, or dominion, but for existence. In this contest, the lowest and humblest of your Majesty's subjects have been called on: it would therefore little become me, who am the first, and who stand at the very footstool of the throne, to remain a tame, an idle, a lifeless spectator of the mischiefs which threaten us, unconscious of the dangers which surround, and indifferent to the consequences which may follow. Hanover is lost; England is menaced with invasion; Ireland is in rebellion; Europe is at the foot of France: at such a moment, the Prince of Wales, yielding to none of your servants in zeal and affection, to none of your subjects in duty, to none of your children in tenderness and affection, presumes to approach you, and again to repeat those offers which he already made through your Majesty's ministers. A feeling of honest ambition, a sense of what I owe to myself and to my family, and above all, the fear of sinking in the estimation of that gallant army, which may be the support of your crown, and my best hope hereafter, command me to persevere, and to assure your Majesty with all humility and respect, that, conscious of the justice of my claim, no human power can ever induce me to relinquish it. Allow me to say, Sir, that I am bound to adopt this line of conduct by every motive dear to me as a man, and sacred to me as a prince. Ought I not to come forward in a moment of unexampled difficulty and danger? Ought I not to share in the glory and victory, when I have every thing to lose by defeat? The highest places in your Majesty's service are filled by the younger branches of the royal family; to me alone no place is assigned; I am not thought worthy to be even the junior major-general of your army. If I could submit in silent submission to such indignities, I should indeed deserve such treatment, and prove to the satisfaction of your enemies and my own, that I am entirely incapable of those exertions which my birth, and the circumstances of the times, peculiarly call for. Standing so near the throne, when I am debased, the cause of royalty is wounded. I cannot sink in the public opinion, without the participation of your Majesty in my degradation; therefore every motive of private feeling and of public duty induce me to implore your Majesty to review your decision, and to place me in that situation which my birth, the duties of my station, the example of my predecessors, and the expectations of the people of England entitle me to claim. Should I be disappointed in the hope which I have formed; should this last appeal to the justice of my sovereign, and the affection of my father, fail of success, I shall lament in silent submission his determination; but Europe, the world, and posterity, must judge between us."

To this communication the king replied briefly in these terms: "My dear son,-Though I applaud your zeal and spirit, of which, I trust, no one can suppose any of my family wanting, yet, considering the repeated declarations I have made of my determination on your former applications to the same purpose, I had flattered myself to have heard no further on the subject. Should the implacable enemy so far succeed as

to land, you will have an opportunity of showing your zeal at the head of your regiment; it will be the duty of every man to stand forward on such an occasion, and I shall certainly think it mine to set an example, in defence of every thing that is dear to me, and to my people."

On the second of October, 1803, the prince addressed a letter to his brother, the commander-in-chief, remonstrating with him on his having been passed over in the extensive promotion that had just taken place in the army. In his reply to the communication, the duke of York said: "In the year 1795, upon a general promotion taking place, at your instance I delivered a letter from you to his majesty, urging your pretensions to promotion in the army, to which his majesty was pleased to answer, that before he had appointed you to the command of the 10th light dragoons, he had caused it to be fully explained to you, what his sentiments were with respect to a Prince of Wales entering into the army, and the public grounds upon which he never could admit of your considering it as a profession, or of your being promoted in the service; and his majesty, at the same time, added his positive command and injunctions to me never to mention this subject again to him, and to decline being the bearer of any application of the same nature, should it be proposed to me; which message I was of course under the necessity of delivering to you, and have constantly made it the rule of my conduct ever since; and indeed I have ever considered it as one of the greatest proofs of affection and consideration towards me, on the part of his majesty, that he never allowed me to become a party in this business.' This discussion-the whole of which was published soon after-procured the prince some return of the popularity which he had so long forfeited.

In 1804, his royal highness claimed the right of superintending the education and health of his infant-daughter, the princess Charlotte. The good king, his father, interposed his authority in behalf of his "beloved niece," as he termed her, and insisted that she had a natural right to the guardianship of her own daughter; but to prevent unseemly disputes in his family, he resolved-on the principle that the young heiress-apparent belonged to the state-to take her under his own protection. The prince opposed this arrangement; but the king continued firm, and the young princess was placed at Warwick house.

In 1805, when the royal pair had been for some years living in a state of separation, the duke of Sussex informed the prince, that Sir John Douglas had made known to him some circumstances respecting the behaviour of the princess, which might, if true, not only affect the honour of his royal highness, but also the succession to the throne. Sir John and Lady Douglas having made a formal declaration of certain charges against the princess, this declaration was submitted to Lord Thurlow, who gave it as his opinion that the matter must be referred to the king. In consequence of this opinion, and some further examinations, a warrant was issued by his majesty, dated the 29th of May, 1806, directing and authorizing Lord Erskine as lord-chancellor, Lord Gren ville as first lord of the treasury, Earl Spencer as one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, and Lord Ellenborough as chief-justice of the court of king's bench, to inquire into the truth of the allegations, and to report to him thereon. These commissioners first examined on oath the principal informants, Sir John Douglas, and Charlotte his wife,

who both positively swore, the former to his having observed the fact of the pregnancy of her royal highness; and the latter, not only that she had observed it, but that her royal highness had not made the least scruple of talking about it with her. Lady Douglas further deposed that, in the year 1802, the princess was secretly delivered of a male child, which had been brought up in her own house, and under her own inspection. The commissioners reported that there was no foundation whatever for believing that the child living with the princess was the child of her royal highness. That child was beyond all doubt born in the Brownlow-street hospital, on the eleventh of July, 1802, of the body of Sophia Austin, and was first brought to the princess's house in the month of November following. "It appears," continued the commissioners, "that as, on the one hand, the fact of pregnancy and delivery are, to our minds, satisfactorily disproved, so, on the other, we think that the circumstances to which we now refer, particularly those stated to have passed between her royal highness and Captain Manby, must be credited until they shall receive some decisive contradiction; and, if true, are justly entitled to the most serious consideration." Immediately on the receipt of a copy of this report, the princess of Wales addressed a letter to his majesty, in which she solemnly asserted not only her innocence as to the weightier parts of the charge preferred against her, but her freedom from all the indecorums and improprieties which had been imputed to her by the lords-commissioners, upon the evidence of persons who spoke as falsely as Sir John and Lady Douglas themselves. With respect to Sir Sidney Smith she said, that "if his visiting frequently at Montague house, both with Sir John and Lady Douglas, and without them; at luncheon, dinner, and supper; and staying with the rest of the company till twelve or one o'clock, or even later; if these were some of the facts which must give occasion to unfavourable interpretations, they were facts which she could never contradict, for they were perfectly true." She admitted also, that Sir Sidney had often visited her at early hours in the morning, and that she had been alone with him on several occasions. 66 But," she added,

66

if suffering a man to be so alone is evidence of guilt, from whence the commissioners can draw any unfavourable inference, I must leave them to draw it; for I cannot deny that it has happened frequently, not only with Sir Sidney Smith, but with many others; gentlemen who have visited me; tradesmen who have come for orders; masters whom I have had to instruct me in painting, music, and English; that I have received them without any one being by. I never had any idea that it was wrong thus to see men of a morning. There can be nothing immoral in the thing itself: and I have understood it was quite usual for ladies of rank and character to receive the visits of gentlemen in the morning, though they might be themselves alone at the time. But if this is thought improper in England, I hope every candid mind will make allowance for the different notions which my foreign education and habits may have given me." On the 17th of August, she again wrote to the king, requesting that she might have authenticated copies of the report, and of the declarations and dispositions on which it proceeded. Having received these papers, the princess submitted them to her legal advisers, Lord Eldon, Percival, and Sir Thomas Plomer; and on the second of October she transmitted to his majesty an elaborate