« 前へ次へ »
- ment by the husband entails three-fourths we to look for any accusation preferred by ss of the external consequences of guilt in the Prince against the Princess? I have so this world, though no internal disappro- never seen any such accusation, and I do " bation may follow."
not believe that any such accusation exists This article in the COURIER, as well as even to this day. The Princess asserts, in the onecited before, was signed K. B.: who her, Letter, that there is no accuser of her. the real author was I know not; but, sure I implicitly believe what she says. It is I am, that his heart is the seat of the most not possible to believe, that she would, in odious tyranny; a tyranny so base and cow- so solemn a manner, have made this asserardly that it is impossible to express one's tion, if it had not been true. And, if detestation of it in ierms sufficiently strong. what she here asserts be true, what does He confines his maxims to this country, the man deserve, what punishment does which, if he spoke truth as to the maxims not that man merit, who has thrown out themselves, would be some comfort to the these insinuations ! test of the world ; for, certainly, any thing But, though the Prince has never imso dishonourable to the understandings and peached, or accused, the Princess, this Mr. hearts of a people was never before promul- K. B. has done it. It is done in a very gated. Somebody, I forget who, has call- low way, to be sure; but it is done, and ed England a heaven for women and a hell a very curious accusation it is. Having for horses ; but, if what this calumniator spoken of the refusal of the mother to see of her Royal Highness asserts were true, her daughter, he proceeds thus :-“ This the saying might be reversed, or, at least,“ may be hard ; but the same policy which we may safely say, that the lot of our four- " takes the child from the mother, gave to legged fellow-creatures would be by far the " the husband the wife. These things are best of the two. But, his assertions are as not regulated by common rules, and should false as the intention of them is foul. In
In “not be judged by common feelings. If this country, as in all others, except, per
" the mother is to be pilied for seeing her haps, in the states of Africa, an innocent “ daughter but once in the fortnight, how woman, injured by her husband, is always, “ much more should the father be pitied amongst those who are acquainted with the " who was FORCED to marry a Lady facts, not only an object of compassion but " whom he never had seen, and of WHOSE of the attentions of the world, and what is “ TEMPER he had no opportunity to more, we are just enough, in general, to judge." This last insinuation is quite ascribe to the husband his full share of any worthy of the source whence it proceeds ; indiscretions, into which the temptations, quite worthy of the source whence came almost inseparable from the nature of her the doctrine, that the reputation of the wife
situation, may lead her. So far from act is to be blasted merely by the fact of her ·ing upon the doctrine of this writer, from having been driven froin the husband's whom, I dare say, all the properties of house. manhood have long ago departed; so far It is not easy to discover why the " same from acting upon what he calls our 6 severe policy" that leads to state marriages should ;"" rules of society," we make large allow- produce a prohibition against the mother ances for the conduct of wives notoriously seeing the daughter more than once in fourill-treated by their husbands, and do not teen days. But, laying this aside as unexpect that a woman is to shut herself up worthy of further notice, we are here, for in a hermitage for life, because, “ though the first time, introduced to the hardship, “ innocent in the highest degrec,” an ef- imposed upon the Prince, in forcing him fete or capricious brute of a husband, bav. to marry; and, we are told, that, so hard ing, perhaps, first pocketed her fortune, was his case, that he is more to be pitied on may have driven her from his house. account of it than is the mother on account of
This may serve as a justification of our her being deprived of the sight of her daughmanners and rules against the doctrine ofter.—This language is somewhat differeny
K. B. in its general application ; and, in from that which was contained in the Adv. applying it to the particular case before us, dresses of 1795, on the occasion of the
let me ask this gentleman (for, I dare say, marriage, and in the Answers to those Adhe calls himself one) where we are to look dresses, wherein the Prince expressed his for “ impeachment by the husband." I do happiness at the event. It is rather hard, fiot mean, nor does he mean impeachment seeing all that passed then, for the Princes in the technical sense of the word; but, I to be told, in the Loudon prints, that the mean, accusation ; and, where, I say, are Prince was forced to marry her, and that
as a man.
he ought to be pitied on that account.
He had in idea heirs to the But, besides the baseness, besides the throne ; the perpetuating of the line of his cowardly insolence of the statement, it is ancestors. Say that these were his views, false. If true, it makes nothing against but do not say that he was forced to marry, the Princess, for, it is clear, that if there and do not tell us that he is to be pilied on was force on the one side, there was force account of his marriage ; for we know, on the other. But, as far as relates to the that, if he had chosen it, he might have Prince, it is not true; it is a direct false- remained single all his life-time. hood, and the use of it can only tend to But, if the Prince is to be pitied, what shew what miserable shifts the calumniators shall we say of the Princess ? If he is to of the Princess are compelled to resort to. be pitied because the nature of his situation The Prince was not, because he could not in life led to his marriage with a person be, forced to marry the Princess. The whom he had never seen, and with whose King has the power of refusing his consent" TEMPER". (dirty insinuation !) he to any of the members of the Royal Fa- could have had no opportunity of bemily to marry; he has a negalive upon their coming acquainted ; if he is to be pitied choice in this respect; but, he has no on this account ; if this plea is to be put power, nor have the Parliament and the forward in his favour (for as a plea this King together any power, to force any writer means it); if, I say, the Prince is member of the Royal Family to marry, to become an object of our compassion on under any circumstances whatever they this score; if he is to be held forth to the may be. It is, therefore, false ; flatly people in this light, what shall we not say false, and it is an impudent falsehood, to for the Princess upon the same score ? Did say, that the Prince was forced to marry not she marry a man whom she had never her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. seen? Did not she marry a man of whose
This writer, when, for the basest pur... TEMPER” she could have no knowposes, he was hatching this tale about force ledge from experience or observation? put upon the Prince as to his marriage, for. Were they not upon an equal footing in got, perhaps, what an imputation he was, this respect? Yes; and, besides, though indirectly, casting upon the King; " our he was not, and could not be, forced to good old King," whose example, as to edu- marry her, I do not know that it was not eation, thaugh not as to other things, he is in the power of her father to force her lo so eager to cite. If the Prince was forced marry him. I do not know that it was in to marry, it was his father forced him, for, his power; nor do I kuow that he would as to the laws of ţhe land they know nothing have exerted such power if he had had it. of any such power. If any hody forced the But, it is possible that it might have been Prince to marry, it was his father, who so; and, I know, that, in the case of the made the treaty of marriage, and who ne- Prince, the thing is impossible. I know, ver consulted the Parliament about the that there existed no power to force him, matter, till he had so done. This was all and that to marry was an act of his own free in the usual way; the father's consent was will. His motives I am not presumptuous necessary, and it was given. It is likely, enough to attempt to point out; but, I intoo, that the match was advised by him ; sist, that the act itself was the effect of his it is likely that it was very much desired own choice, Five act of the Princess might, by him; but, I again say, that he did not, for aught I know, have been the same; but, because he could not, force the Prince to what I say is this : that if he be an object of marry. If he married a person whom he pity because he married a lady whom he had had never seen, he knew what he was never seen, she must, upon the same about. He was no chicken. He was 32 ground, be an object of pity, and an obyears of age. He had cut his wisdom ject of greater pity, on that score, because teeth long before the day of his marriage. the marriage removed her into a foreign He did what he did with his eyes open. I country and cut her off from all the condo not say that the Princess was, or that nexions of her youth, from all her friendshe could be, the objeci of his choice as to ships, and from the greater part of those personal affection, because he had never things that make life delightful. seen her; but, this I assert, that it was Therefore, in whatever degree, the cirhis choice, that it was his own free choice cumstance of marrying an unknown person to marry her. He, doubtless, had higher is calculated to weigh in favour of the Prince, views than those of vulgár gratification. it must weigh, in the same degree, at least, He viewed the matter as a Prince, and not in favour of the Princess. But, to say the
ruth, it can have no weight, if duly con- "tigated, the intercourse between the mosidered, in favour of either, upon the sup- "sther and daughter has been allowed to position, that the marriage was as much an " continue. The assertion therefore that it act of her choice as it was of his. They " is on such grounds the intercourse is reboth knew what they were about. They " fused is obviously a mere pretence. There were willing to make the sacrifice (if they " may be other grounds on which a father did make any) in order to secure great be- may deem it proper to-dimit a daughter's nefit to themselves and their families; and, “ visits to the mother. Supposing the moin talking about the pily due to the Prince's" ther of a violent temper, of course mansituation, the objecis he had in view ought " ners and habits ; capricious, boisterous, not to be overlooked. If we were to rea- " restless, ambitious, and vain ; less in son in the way that this writer does, who “ clined to the society of her own than of would be entitled to so much of our pity as “ The other sex, and with them familiar bemmers and well-diggers, a tenth-part of " yond the ideas of English decorum; whom get their brains knocked out, or are "Though perfectly chaste in person and buried alive? The truth is, however, they " even in thought; supposing such a moare no more objects of pity than labourers " ther associating herself with her husabove ground. They calculate gains and band's enemies, making of them her dangers; and they freely choose to take the confidants, and entering into the schemes Jatier for the sake of the former.
56 of the factious for the purpose of thwartcan force another to be a well-digger; ror "ing, exasperaling and traducing him; was the Prince of Wales forced to be a
"supposing this mother to live separately husband.
" from the husband, and on the worst It is easy to see with what view this “ terms with him; let all this be supposed, topic has been brought forward. The 66 and ample reasons will be found for the writer looks back to the line of the un- " Father's refusal of allowing the child to happy separation. He is, perhaps, of opi-" be educated under such an example with nion, that the world will look back to that oul ascribing that refusal to an opinion epoch too, as being the proper point whence 66 of the Mother's want of chastity. A woto start in an inquiry into the conduct of " man may be chaste in person, yet of the parties inost concerned ; and, conscious, " manners and habits leading to unchastity apparently, that up to that moment, no " in others, or of a temper and inclination one had dared to utter even an insinuation " likely to make an undulisul child." against the conduct of the Princess, he thinks Having thus, under the guise of supposit necessary to lay the ground of a cause of ing a case, given what he evidently wishes disegreement and separation. Hence his to go furth as a description of the character real motive for this pity of the Prince on of her Royal Highness the Princess of account of his forced marriage; hence his Wales, he next, in the usual manner of insinuation against the “ TEMPER” of the such calumniators, says, that he does not Princess, than which, surely, nothing ever wish il lo be so understood. was more insolent or more base; for, the ** It is not intended to assert or insinuate sentence contains a charge against her Royal" that this is a picture of the character af Highness as to her temper.
It is a new 66 the Princess of WALES. Her friends, charge ; for, until now, the Princess has personally acquainted with her, reprealways been spoken of as a person of the sent her as mild and amiable in all rebest temper, which, indeed, is pretty well spects. The picture is not drawn that proved to be the case by the attachment of 66 it
may be taken as a likeness of the Prinher daughter to her, and by the silence, cess, but to show that there are other bad upon this head, of her bitterest enemies.
qualities besides uuchasteness which may In another of his articles this same wri- “justify a father in refusing his child's ter has the following passage, which merits 66 education to a mother; and still more particular attention, and ought to go forth." should that child be the heir presumptive to the world as a specimen of the brutality" to the throne, a personage for whom the by which the Princess has been assailed in 66 British Constitution has specially prothe London news papers.—"In her Letter," vided." This is adding cowardice to ca“ her Royal Highness complains, that the lumny, He drew the picture with a ma6 limitation of visits to her daughter is an nifest intention of its being applied to lier "impeachment of her honour, a revival of Royal Highness, and this latter part of the "s the charges made some years ago. But paragraph is merely for the sake of avoidsi since these charges were made and inves- ing a prosecution for libel, for which purpose, however, it is not sufficient, seeing tions? Is there here any attempt to thwart, that the real meaning of the writer can be exasperate, or traduce her husband ? If mistaken by no man.
she has caused her complaint to be made Now, then, my friend, what a pictare public, from what has that arisen but from is here given ! And, observe, that this the refusal to listen to that complaint ? picture is intended to be applied to that Had her complaint been listened to, had same lady, who, in 1995, was received in she received redress, had she been permitEngland as an Angel bringing with her ted to see her child only once a week, we blessings, not only for the present genera- should never have seen the letter, because tion, but for generations yet to come ! Her it is evident, that the letter never would husband was described as the happiest of have been written.' With what justice, mortals in possessing such a treasure ; and, then, can she be charged with entering inin short, there were no expressions of to the schemes of the factions for the purpraise that our language affords, which pose of thwarting, exasperating, and were not employed' in the description of ducing her husband ? her person, her manners, and her mental The truth is, that being conscious of inendowments. For my part, I can know nocence, her forbearance is something wonnothing of the Princess's manners ; but, derful; and, it is not less true, that any with the two pictures before me, and with longer forbearance must have made against a pretty good view of the circumstances un- her in the opinion of the world. That der which both were drawn, I can have no the Prince, now invested with kingly hesitation in believing the picture now powers, has a right to direct his daughgiven to be a most foul and base attempt to ter's education, we know very well; but, disseminate falsehood. I believe the cha- this does not mean, that the mother is to racter of the Princess to be strongly mark. be shut out from free access to the child. ed with frankness and unréserve, but this, Her seeing her child could not have interso far from a fault, is an amiable characte- rupted the course of her studies. I never
More mischief is done by hypocri- yet heard, that a part of good bringing up sy, in a day, than by the want of caution consisted in excluding the mother from a in a life-time.
sight of the child to be brought up. It is However, the cowardly writer (for cow- in vain to atteinpt to twist this prohibition ardice is the great characteristic of all the into a part of a system of education ; for, Princess's enemies) does not here venture the sole interpretation that it will admit of to give countenance to the 'serious charges is that which the Princess has put upon it : said to have been preferred against her namely, that she is unfit to be trusted in Royal Highness. He charges her with ca- the presence of her daughter; and this beballing with her husband's enemies. Who ing so manifestly the case, I put to any man are they? The persons who espoused her of a just mind, what must have been the caurse in the first instance are now her hus- conclusion, if the Princess had any longer band's ministers, chosen by himself. He forborne to complain? I put it to any man, chose them for his ministers after they had what he would have thought of her, if she espoused her cause ; ufter they had advised had remained silent under such circumthe King to restore her to court; and would stances? Yet is she, by these base pandars he have chosen them, if he himself had not of the press, charged with caballing and been convinced that she really was innocent intriguing with her husband's enemies; of the things laid to her charge ?
she is charged with obtruding herself upon She is charged here with entering into the public. They seem, really, to think the schemes of the factions, for the purpose her something less than a worm. Someof thwarting, exasperating, and traducing thing that either has no feeling, or that her husband. And, where is the pronf of ought to suppress every feeling the discothis? This charge, like all the others, is vering of which is inconvenient to her husfalse. Sie complains to him in private, band. This is a state to which no human thar she is not permitted to see her only being ought to be reduced; and, it is a child; she boldiy asserts that there is no state to which no man, worthy of the just cause for this severe affliction on her; name, would wish to reduce any thing and, her complaint not being attended to, beating the name of woman. she makes her letter public, in order that But, if it be part of a system of educathe world may not suppose, that the prohi- tion to exclude the mother from the child, bition is founded on any miscouduct of her's. how comes it, that the Queen was never Is this entering into the schemes of the fac- shut out from her children? And horv comes it, that she is not now shut out from the eye of the public, tacitly acknowledge her grand-child? Why is the grand-mo- herself in fault? The Prince, behold, is, ther more fit to have the care of the child by this writer, justified in excluding the than the mother herself? The writer, be- mother from the daughter, lest by allowfore quoted, whose malignity can be traced ing the intercourse, he should seem to conto only one source, expresses his fears of fess himself conscious of being wrong in livthe Princess Charlotte being initiated into ing in a state of separation from his wife. German manners. " What education, But, the mother, oh! she is to hold her says he, “ does the young PRINCESS re- tongue, she is even to shun the light, she ~ quire ? Is it lessons in German morality? is to look no one in the face, she is to do 6 Are we not sufficiently Germanized ?- nothing to convince the world, that she is 66 Must we Germanize our females in man- not in the wrong; she, though innocent, is
ners as our fops are Germanized in dress ? to act the part of an acknowledged criminal; ! What should we do; set the example and, because she does not do so, she is to 66 before the young Princess of a dutiful be called an undutiful wife! She has now, “ wife, or of one who could go repeatedly it seems, " endangered the raising of the 6 to the Opera, where she was applauded in public indignation against her husband.” “ reproach of her husband, and he was And how ? Only by publishing her ap66 hissed in her praise: of one who can en- peal to himself. That is all she has done. 6 danger the raising of the public indigna- She has complained to him of her treat" lion against him, on grounds so shallow ment; and, if the publishing of this com
as those of the letter in question?. Un- plaint exposes him to the danger here 66 fortunately, the Prince and PRINCESS spoken of, she is not to blame; or, if she 6 liye separately, on the worst terms. be, so is every man who makes known to - This state of things can only have arisen the public any grievance under which he 6' from what the Prince thinks sufficient labours. If her complaint, as contained in 6 cause, and to give up the government of her letter, be well founded, it will and it 6 his child to a Person whose conduct he ought to produce an effect in the public" himself impeaches, would be to confess mind; if it be ill-founded, let it be answered; “ himself conscious of being wrong, of be- let it be shown to be ill-founded. She “ ing highly criminal in living separately makes certain assertions. She says, that 6 from the Mother,"
perjured and SUBORNED accusers have Now, if there be danger in German man- been brought against her ; she says, that ners, why are so many Germans introduced she has been fully acquitted of all the into our army, and why have they, in Eng- charges preferred by them; she says, that, land, the command even of English troops if any one is still wicked enough to whisper But, why was not this perceived when the suspicions against her, she wishes for a fresh marriage took place? Did not the Prince inquiry. And, what answer has been given and the King know, that the Princess was to this? Base insinuations only, by anoa German woman? Nay, is not the Queen, nymous writers. This answer will not sathe King's wife and the Prince's mother, a tisfy the world; this is not the way to anGerman woman? And yet, behold, this swer a serious complaint, signed with the man can discover no danger in her manners complainant's name. or precepts. Is the Queen less a German, Much has been said about the Princess is she less a foreigner, than the Princess ? having acted under bad advice ; and it has To what miserable shifts are these assailants been frequently stated, that she would have of her Royal Highness driven! Nothing cause to repent of what has been called her. more clearly shows the weakness, the mi- rashness. The news-papers have been fillserable, weakness, of their cause.
ed with accounts of great councils of state But, the Princess is here called an un- held upon the subject of her letter; and of dutiful wife. And why, because she was, depositions and examinations, taken before it is here said, applauded at the Opera in magistrates. But, still, we see no answer reproach of her husband. How was she to the bold and distinct assertions of her into blame for that, or for the hisses, which nocence; and, I say again, that those ashe is here said to have received in her sertions are not to be answered by hints and praise ? She had not the power to restrain insinuations of anonymous writers of paraeither the applauses or the hisses; and, as graphs. In my conception of it, there neto going to the Opera, was she to refrain ver was a plainer case. The limitation of from doing that because she was separated the Princess's visits to her daughter must from her husband, and thus, by shunning rest for defence upon some ground of com.