by De Beaume, and the money advanced by Auriol, the sum received by the Prince amounted to between 60,000l. and 70,000l. sterling.

Our comments shall be short. The pages of history present a melancholy picture of the turpitude of the human heart. If we investigate the character of our kings, from the conquest to the reign of George IV., and we were to write a catalogue of all the vices inherent in our nature, and the crimes which have resulted from those vices, there is not one against which we could not select some individual king to affix his name, as having been the perpetrator of it. The country has already determined against which vices the name of George IV. ought to be affixed; and the history which we have now given of these bond transactions will invest him with an undisputable claim to one which must be too obvious to require any notification from ourselves. We may, and we expect to be told, that we are deserving of censure for having now given publicity to a transaction, the principal agents of which are in their graves, and the particulars of which are only to be found amongst the musty records of the antiquary: we answer, that we pretend not to draw a portion of a picture, but the whole of it, the black shades of which will force themselves upon our attention, but to which we give no deeper colouring than is required to preserve the truth of the object. The facts of the case have slept, but they are not forgotten; nor can they be forgotten while the claims of justice are unsatisfied, and while atonement and reparation are withheld from the widows and orphans of the guillotined creditors. Perhaps there never came into any court a debt so incurred, so unjustly opposed, or of so extraordinary a nature, both in the transactions that preceded, and in those that followed it, in its whole history-its rise and progress, as well as its litigation. The British Princes, by their proceedings in the business, appear as if the law of England had no security over them—as if they could, at their pleasure, contract debts, or commit their names to paper, to bind themselves with every legal solemnity, and then, in defiance of all law and justice, discharge them by a command to their own servant to destroy what they have so signed. But the servant of the Prince so acting was a high official functionary of the

people; he was also their servant, and, although he might not hesitate to compromise his character, as the servant of the Prince, he should have paused before he compromised it as the servant of the people.

We have no desire to hold up the conduct of princes to reprehension more marked than necessary, nor do we 'extenuate, nor set down aught in malice,'

Equum ac verum duxit, quod ipsi
Facere collibuisset.

Parliament came three times forward to discharge the debts of the Prince of Wales; but three times was parliament deceived by schedules which concealed the post-obits and the foreign bonds. Why this concealment took place must have been best known to his Royal Highness; but a post-obit bond for 30,000l., a bond for 330,000 guilders, and another of 100,000l., besides the Hessian and other debts, are not such items in an account as escape the memory; but be the cause what it may, the sums never appeared in any schedule laid before parliament, though so much confidence was due to a generous nation.

The Prince of Wales could not have been ignorant of the liberality of the British people, and therefore greater was his error in evading the payment of such debts in the manner which he adopted; but, unfortunately for himself and for the honour of his country, these debts were concealed, the creditors were wronged, the parliament deceived, and the heir-apparent to the throne of England disgraced.

The traveller who has been plodding his way through dreary forests and lengthened deserts feels himself exhilarated when, on a sudden, his eyes are gratified with the sight of human dwellings, and all the cheering objects which give a charm to civilized life. So is it comparatively constituted with the historian, who having for a time had under his review scenes of tyranny, of bloodshed, of cruelty and injustice, of heartless profligacy, and systematic depravity, is pleasingly called to direct his attention to brighter scenes, and on the pages of a nation's history to transcribe some great and glorious deeds which have raised her in the scale of civilized governments,

or which, by the promotion of the arts and sciences, have increased the welfare and happiness of the people. Would such were our lot! Few have been the bright and exhilarating scenes to cheer us on our way; few the great and noble achievements to hold forth as an example to succeeding generations, or to transmit to future monarchs as a lesson by which they might learn how to govern a free and mighty people, to consolidate their power, or extend their political influence.

The great and important events which distinguished the year 1812, encircling within their influence the most ancient dynasties of Europe, and threatening to undermine the foundation of those institutions on which their fame and grandeur had been erected, had diverted the attention of the English people, in a certain degree, from the contemplation of those scenes which were passing within the immediate circle of the royal family, although to the deep and penetrating observer it was apparent that a mass of inflammatory combustibles was congregating, which in a short time might set the nation in a flame, and drive it to the verge of open and sanguinary rebellion. The muttering of the approaching storm was heard at a distance, the rumbling of the devastating mass was heard in the womb of the volcano, and the forthcoming eruption was dreaded, as threatening to carry before it ruin and destruction to the country.

In our Memoirs of the Princess Charlotte, we described, as minutely as our limits would then allow us, the severe and uncompromising spirit which seemed to actuate the Prince Regent in regard to the intercourse between his daughter and her ill-fated mother; but since that period many important circumstances have come to light, and many facts authenticated, which throw a deeper interest over the tragic scene, and which may be considered as a necessary appendage to the completion of the picture.

During the summer of 1812, the intercourse between the Princess of Wales and her daughter was subjected to considerable restriction, so as almost to preclude any interchange of those affectionate attentions which should ever occur between a mother and daughter. The Princess Charlotte resided at this time chiefly at Windsor, and was under the special care

and protection of the Queen: her removal thither, on the plea of ill health, was understood chiefly to be in order to prevent, as much as possible, her intimacy with her mother. On one occasion the Princess of Wales wrote a letter to her Majesty, and offered either to visit her daughter at Windsor, or that the Princess Charlotte might be allowed to attend on her. An answer was returned from the Queen that her Royal Highness' studies were not to be interrupted.

On another occasion the Princess of Wales travelled to Windsor expressly to visit her daughter; and as it was Sunday, there could not be any fear of interrupting her studies. She was, however, refused that gratification. The Queen said to her Royal Highness, on her leaving Windsor, I hope you will always preserve the same friendship which you have ever felt for me.' The Princess replied, in a tone of irony, Oh, certainly, your Majesty.' At this interview, the Queen offered her Royal Highness no refreshment whatever; and it was stated by the Queen that the Regent had given orders not to allow any meeting at Windsor between the Princess and her daughter. It should be observed that the Queen was always apparently civil to the Princess of Wales, but her Royal Highness knew too well that she was one of her most inveterate enemies.

The restrictions placed on the intercourse of the Princess of Wales and her daughter must not, however, be understood to have been such as to have prevented them occasionally seeing each other. But although the Princess was allowed to dine with her daughter once a week, in the presence of her governess and other ladies at Kensington or Warwick House, she was not suffered to see her in private, to pass any time with her, nor to enjoy that happy connexion with her child which every mother should feel, which she is anxious to cherish, and which contributes so much to mutual happiness and confidence.

The restrictions were, however, so grievous to the Princess of Wales, as well as to her daughter, that her Royal Highness expressed her determination, upon legal advice, to bring her situation before parliament.

This may be considered as the public renewal of the dis

putes between the Prince Regent and his maltreated consort, and which was the precursor of one of the most tragic scenes recorded in the annals of the country.

On the 14th of January, 1813, the Princess of Wales transmitted a sealed letter to the Prince Regent by Lady Charlotte Campbell, to the care of the Earl of Liverpool and Lord Eldon, enclosing, at the same time, an open copy for the perusal of those noble Lords. This celebrated letter is as follows:-

Sir,—It is with great reluctance that I presume to obtrude myself upon your Royal Highness, and to solicit your attention to matters which may, at first, appear rather of a personal than a public nature. If I could think them so-if they related merely to myself-I should abstain from a proceeding which might give uneasiness, or interrupt the more weighty occupations of your Royal Highness' time. I should continue, in silence and retirement, to lead the life which has been prescribed to me, and console myself for the loss of that society and those domestic comforts to which I have so long been a stranger, by the reflection that it has been deemed proper I should be afflicted without any fault of my own-and that your Royal Highness knows.

'But, Sir, there are considerations of a higher nature than any regard to my own happiness, which render this address a duty both to myself and my daughter. May I venture to say-a duty also to my husband, and the people committed to his care? There is a point beyond which a guiltless woman cannot with safety carry her forbearance. If her honour is invaded, the defence of her reputation is no longer a matter of choice; and it signifies not whether the attack be made openly, manfully, and directly, or by secret insinuation, and by holding such conduct towards her as countenances all the suspicions that malice can suggest. If these ought to be the feelings of every woman in England who is conscious that she deserves no reproach, your Royal Highness has too sound a judgment, and too nice a sense of honour, not to perceive how much more justly they belong to the mother of your daughter-the mother of her who is destined, I trust at a very distant period, to reign over the British empire.

It may be known to your Royal Highness that, during the continuance of the restrictions upon your royal authority, I purposely refrained from making any representations which might then augment the painful difficulties of your exalted station. At the expira