Part 19

The injurious reports which ministers circulated regarding Queen Caroline's conduct rendered it impossible for her majesty to remain abroad, even if she had so wished; for they presumed to treat her as the most abandoned of the human race, and therefore it became necessary for any virtuous woman, thus publicly accused, to appear in person, and assert her innocence. In the whole management of the ensuing "trial" against this ill-fated queen, justice, feeling, honour, and common sense were all equally outraged! What was the tribunal before which her majesty was called? How was it constituted? Who sat there "to administer evenhanded justice?" The ministers who brought forward the charges against their queen, the officers of the king's household, two of the king's brothers, with many other _noble_ persons closely connected with the court, who held places and pensions at its will, and looked up to it for new honours, for patronage, for wealth, and for power! Were such people, then, calculated to administer justice? Justice, indeed! Was the refusing a list even of the names of the witnesses impartial justice? Was it impartial British justice, when the ministers of the king sat as judges, jurors, and accusers? Like triple-headed monsters, did they not, in that joint capacity, most profligately bribe, clothe, feed, house, and amuse a horde of discarded miscreant Italian servants? Was the instructing, drilling, marshalling, living, and conversing _all_ together of these wretches, who were watched and kept under lock and key by these Cerberi, an example of the impartiality of British justice? Was the permitting the witnesses instantly to return to their den and communicate all their evidence to those who had not been before the House of Lords another proof of the impartiality of what is commonly termed "the highest court of judicature of the first nation in Europe?" Was the treating her majesty as guilty before her trial a fair specimen of the beauty of this court? Monstrous profanation of terms! Was ever common sense so insulted? Was justice ever so outraged? Were those iniquitous proceedings an evidence of that

"Justice, by nothing biassed or inclined, Deaf to persuasion, to temptation blind; Determined without favour, and the laws O'erlook the parties to decide the cause?"

When the law-officers of the crown declared, that "there existed no grounds upon which legal proceedings could be instituted," two obvious and distinct paths were open to ministers. They had their election to advise, either that her majesty should return to this country with all the honours and constitutional privileges belonging to her high station, or else that she should be prevailed upon to establish her court abroad. Yet ministers determined to deviate into a dark and crooked path. They did not venture openly to advise that the queen should return; and yet, as if determined that she should come to this country, they took care to render it impossible for her to remain abroad! Was not the name of the noble-minded Caroline insultingly excluded from the Liturgy? And what reason was assigned for so unjustifiable a proceeding? The Archbishop of Canterbury and other church pluralists gave this: "If any defiled name should there be inserted, the principles of morality would be invaded, the foundations of religion would be sapped, and the destruction of our constitution must inevitably follow!" Now, even allowing the queen to have been the abandoned character represented by her hireling enemies,--nay, more, had she been a MURDERESS,--these impudent and canting hypocrites need not have searched far for a precedent to prove her eligibility for a place in the Liturgy! Were Henry the Eighth, Queen Mary, Charles the Second and his queen, James the Second and his queen, all pure and undefiled? But the place-hunting clergy need not have gone out of their own generation for an example of infamy. What were Queen Charlotte, George the Fourth, the Duke of York, or, though last, not least in the VIRTUES of his family, the _undefiled_ Ernest of Cumberland? Our volumes fully explain what they were! and yet their names graced the Liturgy, as the Attorney-General has declared that the words "Royal Family" comprehend _all_ the individuals of the royal family. But it may be objected that the names of York and Cumberland were not _specifically_ mentioned in the days of Queen Caroline's persecutions. Well, then, the Prince of Wales' name, at least, did figure in our Prayer Book, and was he "pure and undefiled?" The _pious_ sons of the church formally prayed that "God would endue him with his holy spirit," &c.; but it did not appear, by his actions, that their prayers produced the least effect. When he became king, he was prayed for, "to be endued with heavenly gifts, to incline to the will of God, and walk in his ways." Did his infamous conduct to his wife, and his living in open adultery with the Marchioness of Conyngham and others, qualify him for a place in the prayers of the church, as "pure and undefiled?" If ministers, therefore, consented to deprive the queen of this dignity, because of her imputed immorality, might it not have proved a precedent against George the Fourth himself? The lawyers, even Lord Eldon, if it had suited his purpose, might have afterwards cited the case of Caroline as a case in point, while the country could not refuse to dethrone the king on the same plea as they had dethroned the queen, more particularly as it was so easy a matter to prove the gross adultery and immorality of George the Fourth; for his derelictions from virtue were as notorious as the sun at noon-day. Would to heaven, we say, that a king might have been dethroned for immoral conduct, as the world had not then been so cursed with their atrocious deeds. When at foreign courts, her majesty justly claimed the honours pertaining to her exalted rank, but was insultingly told that she was not known as a queen! Thus subjected, _untried and unheard_, to every indignity which could only have followed upon proof and condemnation, her majesty had no alternative left but to return to England, and boldly face her mean-spirited and unmanly enemies. Had her title been proclaimed, had foreign courts been instructed to receive her with the honours due to a queen of England, her continuing to remain abroad would not have worn the appearance of shrinking from the defence of her reputation,--a fear to which she was utterly a stranger. Her noble soul scorned danger; for a braver heart than her's never beat in human breast. But her husband's ministers rendered her absence from this country incompatible with her honour; they _forced_ her to return, and they, and they alone, were responsible for all the mischief that might have ensued to the country from such an unavoidable step on the part of the queen. No one, we think, will doubt that the most serious mischief would have occurred, if these men had persisted in their headlong career. But, _like all cowards_, when they found the danger hovering over their _own_ heads, they shrunk from the contest, and took refuge in a timely retreat!

Nothing in the whole history of human suffering could equal the wrongs of her majesty. With respect to the bill of Pains and Penalties, the various records of persecution may be searched in vain for a case so foul, so false, so full of premeditated and disciplined perjury,--the inquest on Sellis was JUSTICE when _compared_ with this, though the hand of Lord Ellenborough may be traced in both. The mock "trial" of Caroline, Queen of England, we say, cannot be matched for rancour, cruelty, for monstrous and unnatural malignity. There never was a case at all like it: it is without an example in history, and can never become a precedent; for future generations will read it with pity and with horror. The foul charges preferred against the queen by the lowest of the low were disproved by noblemen of the first consideration, by ladies of the highest rank and of the most unblemished honour, by gentlemen of family, of education, and integrity, and by distinguished and gallant soldiers. The evidence of such respectable characters as these present a picture of her majesty which future generations will admire and venerate. But it is impossible that impartial and discerning Englishmen should believe that the "Bill of Pains and Penalties," nominally aimed against the queen, had not, for its main objects, the doing away with trial by jury and the liberty of the press, and, on their ruins, to establish a system of absolute despotism. Whether these effects were originally foreseen and intended by the sagacious projectors of that wicked measure, is a matter of little importance; it is quite obvious that such would have been its consequences. The place-loving Lord Eldon, however, tried hard to make people believe that bills of Pains and Penalties were then "part and parcel" of the constitution of the kingdom. But a trial of such an indescribably infamous description was never before attempted; and even if it had been, Lord Eldon, as a good chancellor, ought to have declared against it, instead of attempting to defend and perpetuate it. With overbearing oligarchs, any sort of precedent was deemed sufficient; and it is rather wonderful that they did not, by the help of precedent, endeavour to re-establish the STAR CHAMBER! If they had succeeded in such a point, the first of the kind attempted in modern times, the faction would, doubtless, have considered themselves authorised, whenever it had suited their views, to proceed by a bill of Pains and Penalties against any obnoxious individual, instead of going before a common jury! To establish such a monstrous system, we repeat, was one of the real, though disguised, objects of ministers, in the prosecution of Queen Caroline; for they perceived the progress of political knowledge, and felt alarmed lest they should lose their arbitrary authority, if they could not adopt some such tyrannical measure to frighten the people into obedience. It was the glorious majesty of the press that bravely defeated such infamous machinations against liberty, for which future generations will have cause to venerate and worship it.

The queen, however, was most grievously slandered and ill-treated by the Tory portion of public writers. Nothing, indeed, could have been more villanous than the charges which blackened the columns of certain newspapers,--journals that, in their general colouring, were too foul and too dark to obtain belief. Well remunerated by government, the scurrilous editors of such libels against female majesty appeared to exult in the pain they inflicted; so long as they satisfied the hateful revenge of their abandoned employers, their end was answered. However much such prostitution of talent is to be lamented, there was yet a worse crime committed by the enemies of Queen Caroline. The ministers of the "established" church scrupled not to take part against her, and, instead of confining themselves to the exposition of the mild and forbearing doctrines of the Christian religion, not unfrequently indulged their wicked disloyalty by delivering the most foul and blasphemous denunciations against their queen, even from the pulpit! This, of course, could only be done with a view of pleasing those who had "rich livings" to reward their misplaced zeal. One of these contemptible _reverends_, by the name of Blacow, was so violent against her majesty, that the queen's law-advisers thought it right to punish his impertinence by an action, in the Court of King's Bench, for a malicious libel, which was contained in a sermon preached by him in St. Mark's Church, Liverpool, and which was afterwards published in the shape of a pamphlet. The jury having found the reverend defendant guilty, the following sentence was passed upon him by the presiding judge:

"The defendant," Mr. Justice Bailey said, "had been convicted of a libel, contained in a sermon preached by him. He was a clergyman, and had uttered the libel within the church. It was, he rejoiced to say, a rare instance of so sacred a place being corrupted to such purposes(?). Of all other places, the house of God, where charity and brotherly love alone should be inculcated, was the last which should be made a theatre for attacks upon the characters of living persons. Every man had enough to do to look to his own character, and it was not necessary to go abroad and make ourselves inquisitors into those of others. This libel was uttered at a time, and upon a subject, upon which there was no great unanimity of thinking, and was therefore, in its nature, calculated to excite far other feelings than such as ought to be indulged in within an edifice devoted to God. The defendant had exercised a most wise discretion to-day, in the line of conduct which he had adopted; and the court had reason to believe that, looking back to his past conduct, he felt contrition for what he had already done. Under all these circumstances, the court having taken the whole matter into their consideration, did order and adjudge that, for this offence, the defendant was to pay to the king a fine of one hundred pounds, be imprisoned in the King's Bench Prison for six months, and, at the end of that time, give securities for his good behaviour for five years, himself in five hundred pounds, and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, and to be further imprisoned until these sureties are perfected."

Thus foiled in patronizing clergymen and public writers to vilify their queen, as well as being compelled to abandon the "Bill of Pains and Penalties," ministers began to feel alarmed lest her majesty should publish an exposition of those state secrets and crimes, which she had so frequently threatened. A more certain plan, therefore, to rid themselves and their abandoned king from this dread of certain disgrace, if not of entire ruin, was now secretly put in force; and her majesty was devoted to a premature end, as we have before explained. One thing, however, we have forgotten to mention in our account of that period, which is this: Lord P----, one of the then ministers, and who is now a member of the _Whig_ government, was fatally correct in FORETELLING the death of this injured woman; for he very incautiously said, in a letter to a friend, "THE QUEEN WILL BE DEAD IN LESS THAN FOURTEEN DAYS!" The letter containing this fatal prediction is now in being; but we could not prevail upon its possessor to allow us to publish a copy of it.

If we have been too prolix in our account or too severe in our remarks respecting our late basely-treated queen, we hope our readers will excuse us. We certainly might say much more, but the subject being one of importance to history, we could not reconcile it with our duty to say less. We are sure every generous-minded Briton will lament, with us, the untimely end of her majesty. Alas! that the page of history should be darkened by such foul transactions as Truth has obliged us to record! Thousands and tens of thousands of the hard-earned money of the tax-payers of this kingdom, with the pledge of peerages to add to the "illustrious dignity" of the House of Lords, were presented to the persons who effected these diabolical acts of atrocity. The money might possibly have been paid; but, in one or two instances, the perpetrators of these sanguinary deeds became too remorse-stricken to wait for the honours of nobility, and made their exit from the world by committing suicide!

The public must have been frequently surprised at the number of persons, of obscure origin, who, without having either distinguished themselves in the world by their talents, or conferred the least benefit upon their country, were ennobled, loaded with wealth, and received into favour, by the profligate George the Fourth. But the following anecdotes, among many others that might be adduced, will explain to our readers the secret causes of such advancement.

* * * * *

Mr. William Knighton was a surgeon, and in his professional capacity attended Sir John M'Mahon (whose numerous villanies we have before set forth) in his last illness, and immediately upon his decease took possession of all his papers, and carried them away, under pretence that M'Mahon had given them to him. When the prince's _grief_ had a little subsided, he went for these papers, but, to his great surprise and consternation, found all the drawers empty! He sent for Mr. Knighton, and asked him about the matter. "Yes," said Knighton, "M'Mahon gave them to me!" "But you mean, of course, to restore them?" "Yes, certainly; but only upon a proper remuneration." "Oh!" said the regent, "I always _meant_ to give you M'Mahon's place!" Nor could he do less, since he then had made himself master, not only of the _private secrets_, but _public ones_ also, which were of the greatest possible consequence. The Duchess of Gloucester was present at this dialogue between her brother the Prince Regent and Mr. Knighton. Our informant had this account from her royal highness' own lips, who also added, "And so my poor brother is obliged to keep this viper about him!" But the ministers said, "The prince may entrust his future secretary with his _private_ affairs, but his _public_ ones belong to us alone, as keepers of his conscience." Mr. Knighton, however, was compensated for this "loss of secrets" by receiving the _honour_ of knighthood. He was also employed to deliver a certain titled lady of an illegitimate child, in Hanover-square, and his faithfulness, in keeping this secret from the public, was rewarded by making him a present of the house, most elegantly furnished, in which the disgraceful affair took place!!! Sir William Knighton had likewise a thousand pounds per annum for his professional attendance on the king!!!

* * * * *

Sir Benjamin Bloomfield, who was some time private secretary to his late majesty, also acquired place and wealth by possessing himself of his master's private transactions. This gentleman was sent from Windsor, by George the Fourth, to the Earl of Liverpool with a large bill for diamonds due to Messrs. Rundell & Co., and for money to pay it. The bill was so large (seventy thousand pounds) that the prime minister _insisted_ upon knowing who these diamonds were for. Sir Benjamin very reluctantly confessed that they had been purchased for Lady Conyngham! Lord Liverpool instantly took Bloomfield with him in his own carriage to Windsor, and requested an audience of the king. His lordship, much to his credit, emphatically told his majesty that Sir B. Bloomfield must resign, or he himself would. The king was so enraged with his secretary for informing the earl of these particulars, that he struck Bloomfield a violent blow, when the mortified knight quickly asked, "WHO POISONED THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE?" It was owing to this circumstance that Bloomfield was sent as ambassador to Sweden, into _honourable_ exile, and, to soothe his wounded pride and prevent his exposure of certain infamous transactions, in which he himself had acted a very prominent part, he was shortly after created--a LORD!!! A good round sum of money was also given him to hush up the matter. We cannot help admiring the conduct of Lord Liverpool in this instance,--the only one, that we are acquainted with, which deserved the thanks of his country; for his lordship boldly refused to pay for the aforesaid diamonds without the consent of parliament, which the king, for shame, could not agree to!

* * * * *

The Duke of Wellington, who has been frequently termed the mushroom duke, obtained his wealth and titles for exposing the brave army of England to unnecessary dangers and hardships. The position which he chose for that army at Waterloo would have assuredly proved its entire destruction, if it had not been for the treachery of Field Marshal Grouchy, one of Napoleon's generals! But the Wellesley family were in possession of the STATE-SECRETS, and it was therefore deemed prudent to shower wealth and honours upon the whole family.

* * * * *

Mr. Conant, the chief magistrate of Bow-street, was knighted for conducting the secret investigation against the Princess of Wales in 1813.

* * * * *

The Marquis of Conyngham, it is well known, obtained his title through the prostitution of his wife to the libertine George the Fourth. The baneful influence which this designing woman exercised over his majesty, to the very last moments of his life, is a deplorable fact, which not only proved mischievous to the best interests of the country, but will for ever brand the name of her contemptible husband with derision and disgust. This shameless mistress stood as the fountain of emolument and preferment, and she took every advantage of that situation to promote the aggrandizement of her family. The indulgent country, however, would hardly have found fault with this second, Mrs. Clarke, had not, in some instances, the very laws of the constitution been infringed, and the domestic policy of the country become endangered, by the effects of her improper influence, which, as it was _secret_, was fraught with the greater injury. Had the marchioness confined herself to benefitting her own family, the mischief would not have been so deplorable; but when the highest offices in the church were bestowed on persons scarcely before heard of,--when political parties rose and fell, and ministers were created and deposed, to gratify the ambition of a prostitute,--then the palace of the king appeared as if surrounded by some pestilential air, and every honourable person avoided the court as alike fatal to private property and public virtue. Thus the entrance to Windsor Castle became, as it were, hermetically sealed, by the "lusty enchantress" within, to all but her favoured minions! The court of George the Fourth certainly differed from that of Charles the Second, although the number and reputation of their several mistresses were nearly the same in favour and character; but George the Fourth had no confiscations to confer on the instruments of his pleasure, and therefore took care to rob the country of gold to make up such deficiency. The reigns of these two monarchs, dissimilar as they might be in some respects, nevertheless possessed this resemblance: that an illegitimate progeny of royalty were thrust forward to the contempt of all decency, and proved a heavy tax on the forbearance of virtuous society. The wicked George the Fourth, as we have been very credibly informed, gave the Marchioness of Conyngham more than half a million of money, as well as bestowing many titles to gratify her insatiable ambition. We really have no words to express our abhorrence of such proceedings!

* * * * *