CHAPTER IX.

ROYALTY UNDER VARIOUS PHASES.

Bishop Watson, a partisan of the Prince-The bishop's reception by the Queen-The Prince's patronage of the bishop-Bishop Watson's views on the Regency-Laid on the shelf-The Prince and the bishop's "Apology" -Ball given on the King's recovery by Brookes's Club; Mrs. Siddons, as Britannia-The Queen's drawing-room on the occasion-Mrs. Siddons's readings at Buckingham-house-Gay life of the Duke of York-Popularity of the Duke of Clarence - His boundless hospitality at the Admiralty-Duel between the Duke of York and Colonel LennoxLittleness of spirit of the Princes-Royal visit to Lulworth CastleAssault on the King-Caricatures of the day-Marriage of the Duke of York-Ceremonious royal visit to the young couple-Caricatures of the Duchess of York-Unhappy in her marriage-The Duchess and Monk Lewis-Alleged avarice of the King and Queen-Dr. Johnson's opinion of the King-Etiquette at Court-The sailor Prince "too far gone" for a minuet-The Royal family at Cheltenham-The mayor and the master of the ceremonies-Questionable taste of the Queen in regard to the drama-Moral degradation of England during the reign of the two first Georges-Mrs. Hannah More's ideas on morality; and Rev. Sidney Smith's witty remark on it-A delicate hint by the Queen to Lady Charlotte Campbell-The Prince's pecuniary difficulties-The Prince and affairs of the heart-Mésalliance of the Duke of Sussex.

AMONG the few bishops who took the "unrestricted" side, on the Regency Bill, Bishop Watson of Llandaff was the most active. No doubt his activity was founded on conscientiousness, for many able men of the period were to be found, who were by no means violent partisans, yet who were ready to maintain that, according to the constitutional law, the right of exercising the power of regent, in the case of incapacity on the part of the reigning sovereign, rested in the next heir, the Prince of Wales. There is as little doubt as to the Queen's having looked with considerable disfavour on all who held such sentiments. Among those who did, was, as I have said, the

Bishop of Llandaff. If Queen Charlotte felt towards the prelate as Queen Caroline used to do towards those who stood between her and her wishes, the fault, if fault there were, was not attributable to her, but to the minister. He, right or wrong, and most persons who knew what the conduct of the elder son of Charlotte was, will agree that he was, at least, morally right,-he, the minister, represented to her that all who supported the Prince, and opposed the ministerial measure, which gave great power to the Queen, were enemies of the sovereign. Charlotte believed this, and perhaps the Whig bishop is not wrong, who says that the Queen lost, in the opinion of many, the character she had hitherto maintained in this country, by falling in with the designs of the minister. These many were, however, only the Whigs. It is, nevertheless, unfortunately true that the Queen distinguished by different degrees of courtesy, on the one hand, and by meditated affronts on the other, those who had voted with, and those who had voted against the ministers, "inasmuch," says Bishop Watson, "that the Duke of Northumberland one day said to me, 'So, my lord, you and I also are become traitors.'"

At the drawing-room held on the King's recovery, the Queen received Bishop Watson with a degree of coldness, which, he says, "would have appeared to herself ridiculous and ill-placed, could she have imagined how little a mind such as mine regarded in its honourable proceedings the displeasure of a woman, though that woman happened to be a Queen." This is as little gallant towards the sex generally, and civil towards Queen Charlotte in particular, as anything ever uttered by St. Kevin, with universal application, from the pulpit, or addressed by him from the rock, with especial application to his persevering Kate.

But, it must not be forgotten that if the Queen had, as it were, two faces for the two parties into which society at court was divided, her eldest son exhibited the same characteristic, and he was, accordingly, eminently cordial with the prelate of Llandaff. When, at the drawing-room above-named, the Queen

looked displeased as the bishop stood before her, the Prince of Wales, who was standing by her side, immediately asked him to come and dine with him. A more unseemly proceeding cannot well be imagined. "On my making some objection," says the bishop, "to dining at Carlton House, the Prince turned to Sir Thomas Dundas, and asked him to give us a dinner at his house on the following Saturday." The party was arranged, the guests met, and, while they were waiting for dinner, the Prince took the bishop by the button-hole, and, says the prelate," he explained to me the principle on which he had acted during the whole of the King's illness, and spoke to me, with an afflicted feeling, of the manner in which the Queen had treated himself. I must do him the justice to say that he spoke, in this conference, in as sensible a manner as could possibly have been expected from an heir-apparent to the throne, and from a son of the best principles towards both his parents."

The especial words, "in this conference," would seem to imply that the son of Charlotte did not always speak in so sensible a manner as could have been expected from a royal heir-apparent. It would have been as well, too, if the bishop had told his readers what the principle was on which the Prince had grounded his conduct throughout the King's illness; and when he simply talks of the Prince as a son imbued with the best principles towards both his parents, he would have done well if he had added, whether he was considering that son politically or morally. I think it must have been politically, for the right reverend prelate did not impress upon his younger friend that a mother's faults should be invisible to the eyes of her children; but, on the other hand, he rather emphatically charged her with ill-humour, by advising the Prince "to persevere in dutifully bearing with his mother's ill-humour till time and her own good sense should disentangle her from the web which ministerial cunning had thrown around her." Now, to persevere in a line of conduct, is to continue in that already entered upon, and the line followed by the Prince was one of continual insult and provocation against the Queen. The

"I was

bishop confesses an inclination to think well of her. willing," he writes, "to attribute her conduct during the agitation of the regency question, to her apprehensions of the King's safety, to the misrepresentations of the King's minister, to anything rather than a fondness for power." There is something inexpressibly ingenuous in the paragraph which follows:

"Before we rose from table at Sir Thomas Dundas's, where the Duke of York and a large company were assembled, the conversation turning on parties, I happened to say I was sick of parties, and should retire from all public concerns, 'No,' said the Prince, and mind who it is that tells you so, you shall never retire—a man of your talents shall never be lost to the public.'" This testimony of himself was recorded by the bishop in 1814, and was published by his son, in the Queen's lifetime, in 1817. Like the passage touching the Queen, it gave offence to the principal person concerned in it. The aged Queen-consort was not pleased to have her "ill-humour" registered before the world, nor was her son flattered by the innuendo which was conveyed in the paragraph which chronicled his promise of conferring preferment on the Bishop of Llandaff. Dr. Watson died prelate of that small diocese. The chief-butler had forgotten Joseph and his services.

We should do but poor justice to the Queen on this occasion if we omitted to state, that if her Majesty looked coldly upon the prelate, it was because the latter had deliberately inflicted an annoyance on the Queen. The clergy of the diocese of Llandaff presented congratulatory addresses to both their Majesties, upon the King's recovery. These addresses were written by Bishop Watson; and in that which he presented to Queen Charlotte, he inserted a paragraph which he avows, in his memoirs, that he knew would be disagreeable to her. The address in question, after expressing that the sympathy of every family had been extended to the Queen in her late distress, complimenting her on the sincerity of her piety, the amiableness and purity of her manners as Queen, wife, and mother, and referring, in laudatory terms, to the concern which she had exhibited for the Monarch during his late

unhappy situation, thus proceeds: "We observed in the :-" deliberations of parliament a great diversity of opinions as to the constitutional mode of protecting the rights of the Sovereign during the continuance of his indisposition; but we observed no diversity whatever as to the necessity of protecting them in the most effectual manner. This circumstance cannot fail of giving solid satisfaction to your Majesty; for, next to the consolation of believing that in his recovery he has been the especial object of God's mercy, must be that of knowing that during his illness he was the peculiar object of his people's love; that he rules over a free, a great, and an enlightened nation, not more by the laws of the land than by the wishes of the people."

Upon this text of his own constructing, the bishop makes the following comment in his Autobiography :-"The first part of this last paragraph I knew would be disagreeable to the Queen, as it contradicted the principle she wished to be generally believed, and the truth of which alone could justify her conduct that the opposition to the minister was an opposition to the King. Now, as there was not a word of disaffection to the King in any of the debates in either house of parliament during the transaction of the regency, and as I verily believe the hearts of the opposition were as warm with the King, and warmer with the constitution, than those of their competitors, I thought fit to say what was, in my judgment, the plain truth." The bishop, however, loses sight of the fact that Queen, ministers, and a great majority of the people desired a restricted regency, in order that the rights of the Sovereign should suffer nothing, in case of recovery; and that Queen, ministers, and a great majority of the people felt that the Prince of Wales had no divine right to the regency, but had by his public and private conduct shown that he was entirely unworthy of holding any powers but under constitutional limitations.

Previous to the King's recovery, the Bishop of Llandaff had expressed himself as having been miserably neglected by Mr. Pitt, and "I feel the indignity as I ought." The bishop declares that he was overlooked, for want of political pliancy.