CHAPTER XXXIX.

A.D. 1747-1748.

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--George II., 1727-1760.

Arrival of Prince Charles at Paris--Meeting with his brother --Reception at Fontainebleau--He returns to Paris--Memorialises Louis--Admonished by his father as to his conduct in France --Charles retires to Avignon--Treatment of Lord G. Murray--His journey to Spain--Return to Paris--Prince Henry made Cardinal --Charles’s pecuniary and other difficulties--His advisers --Congress and peace of Aix-la-Chapelle--Charles and his father protest against the treaty--Charles refuses to quit the French territories--His arrest--Conducted out of the French dominions --Arrival at Avignon.

As soon as the French court received intelligence of the return of Charles to France, they gave orders to prepare the castle of St. Antoine for his reception. He was met near Paris on the 15th of October, (N. S.,[1303]) by his brother and a considerable number of the nobility, who conducted him to his appointed residence. The meeting between the two brothers, who had not seen each other for nearly three years, was of a most affecting description, and the persons who were present declared that they had never before witnessed such a moving scene. Charles at first sight did not know Henry, but the latter at once knew the prince, who is described by his brother as not in the least altered in his appearance since he last saw him, only that he had “grown somewhat broader and fatter.”[1304]

Louis with his court was at this time residing at Fontainebleau, and as Charles was impatient to see him, he sent Colonel Warren thither with instructions to Colonel O’Brien, the accredited minister of the Chevalier de St. George at the court of France, to request an audience. Some difficulties were started at first by the French ministers on the subject of this demand, but the king at last consented to see Charles and his brother, but stipulated that they should preserve a sort of incognito.[1305] Louis in fact had become tired of the war, and that he might not widen the breach between him and the court of London by appearing to recognise the pretensions of the exiled family, he had resolved not to receive the sons of the Chevalier at his court as princes of England. James, who was fully aware of this policy of the French court, thus argues the matter with Charles, who naturally felt indignant at the mode of his reception; “I am far from saying but that the king of France might have done a great deal more for you; but after all, we must consider the vast expenses he is at during the war, and the system he has certainly laid down to himself of not treating you and your brother as princes of England, which system I own shocked me at first, and seems preposterous in the present situation of affairs; but when one considers the uncertainty of the events of war, and that if we are not restored before a peace, the king of France cannot but continue to acknowledge the elector of Hanover as king of England, and by consequence treat us no more as princes of England; we cannot but own that it is wise in him, and in a certain sense even kind to us, not to expose himself and us to a possibility and necessity of ceasing to treat us according to our birth, after having once done it.”[1306]

If Louis had been actuated by the motive thus charitably imputed to him, the reasoning of James would have been plausible enough; but Charles, who had both before and during his expedition experienced the hollowness of the French policy, could not fail to perceive that his father had formed an erroneous idea of Louis’s intentions. As by the treaty of Fontainebleau he had been recognised by that monarch as prince regent of Scotland, Charles had good reason to complain of the mode in which he was to be received by his most Christian majesty; but he repressed his feelings of disappointment on the occasion, and yielded to a necessity which it was not in his power to control. He resolved, however, to neutralize the effect which his appearance at court as a private person might have upon the people by getting up a splendid equipage, and proceeding to Fontainebleau in great state.

Accordingly, on the day fixed for his reception at court, Charles left the castle of St. Antoine, accompanied by a number of his friends in coaches and on horseback. The _cortege_ was on the whole very grand; but Charles himself attracted particular attention by the superbness of his dress. His coat was of rose-coloured velvet, embroidered with silver, and lined with silver tissue. His waistcoat was of rich gold brocade, with a spangled fringe set out in scollops. The cockade in his hat and the buckles of his shoes were studded with diamonds. The George at his bosom, and the order of St. Andrew, which he wore at one of the button-holes of his waistcoat, were illustrated with large diamonds. “In fine,” observes an enthusiastic eye-witness, “he glittered all over like the star which they tell you appeared at his nativity.” Louis received Charles with great kindness, and, embracing him, said, “My dearest Prince, I thank Heaven for the very great pleasure it gives me to see you returned in good health after so many fatigues and dangers. You have proved that all the great qualities of the heroes and philosophers are united in you, and I hope that you will one day receive the reward of such extraordinary merit.” The queen, likewise, welcomed him with every demonstration of good-will and affection. He had never been at the court of France before, and every person was extremely desirous of seeing a prince of whom they had heard so much. As Charles retired from the palace, the whole court crowded about him, and complimented him so highly upon the fame of his exploits, that they could scarcely have testified greater joy, or expressed themselves in warmer terms, had the dauphin himself been engaged in the same dangerous expedition, and returned from it in safety.[1307] Charles, it is said, afterwards returned to the palace, and supped with the king, queen, and royal family; and all his attendants were magnificently entertained at several tables, which had been appointed for them according to their rank.

Though the conduct of the French court towards Charles had been deceptive, yet it is understood that Louis was not so bad as his ministers in this respect; and besides, he appears to have entertained a warm regard for Charles personally. It is believed that Louis would have given proofs of his esteem by embarking with spirit in the cause of the exiled family; but he was controlled by his ministers, who certainly never were serious in their professions. Of the sincerity of the queen, however, there cannot be the least doubt. She and Charles’s mother had passed many of their juvenile years together, and had contracted a warm attachment to each other, which had remained unaltered during the life of the latter. In Charles she now beheld the favourite son of her late friend, whom he strongly resembled, and she looked upon him with a maternal tenderness, which was enhanced by the reputation of his exploits, and the knowledge of the sufferings he had endured. Whenever he came to court, she is said to have conversed with him for whole hours together, during which she would make him relate his adventures to herself and her ladies, all of whom were frequently bathed in tears with the affecting recital.

Within a day or two after his arrival at Fontainebleau, Charles wrote to Louis requesting the honour of a private audience on the subject of his affairs, which appears to have been granted, as three days thereafter, namely, on the 25th of October, the prince requested another interview, for the purpose of delivering into the king’s own hands a short memoir in relation to his affairs.[1308] Unable to obtain a satisfactory answer, Charles left Fontainebleau, and took up his residence with his brother at Clichy, in the neighbourhood of Paris. His company was much sought after by the fashionable circles of that gay metropolis, but he kept himself comparatively retired. He appeared at the opera for the first time on the 30th of October, and was received by the audience with clapping of hands, which continued till the commencement of the opera, and was renewed at the conclusion.[1309]

Though surrounded by men of integrity, who had suffered proscription for his sake, Charles does not appear to have consulted any of them in his difficulties, nor to have honoured them with the least share of his confidence. Shortly after his return to France he wrote to his tutor, Sir Thomas Sheridan, who, after escaping to France, had repaired to Rome, requesting him to join him at Paris; and in the meantime he availed himself of the equivocal services of George Kelly. Sir Thomas, however, saw Charles no more, having died soon after the receipt of his pupil’s letter. Charles then adopted Kelly as his confidant, but he appears to have been in every way unworthy of such a mark of distinction.[1310]

Some time after Charles’s return to Paris, Louis removed his court from Fontainebleau to Versailles, where the prince and his brother met with a cordial reception from the royal family and the persons about the court, but Charles could not obtain any distinct pledge of support. This result was anticipated by his father, who had a just perception of the policy of France in his regard. “I am afraid,” says James to the prince, “that you will have little reason to be satisfied with the court of France, and that you will not have less need of courage and fortitude in bearing and suffering in that country than you had in acting in Britain.” Apprehensive of the impetuosity of Charles’s temper, he most earnestly recommended him to conduct himself with patience and prudence, and warned him of the consequences which might ensue by adopting a different course. This admonition, however, was thrown away upon Charles.

Resolved to put the sincerity of the French court to the test, Charles presented a memorial to Louis on the state of his affairs. In this paper he drew the attention of the French king to Scotland, which he represented as on the eve of destruction; and he stated, that as the government appeared resolved to confound the innocent with the guilty, it was reasonable to conclude that the discontent of the nation would be general, and that if he was enabled to enter upon another enterprise the number of his adherents would be tripled. He also stated that he would be deceiving his most Christian majesty were he to say that he could again subdue Scotland after his friends had been destroyed, and that if the opportunity was then lost the king of France might for ever renounce any expected aid to his arms by a revolution in that country,--that he had always had numerous partisans in Scotland, though he had never had a sufficient supply either of money, provisions, or regular troops, and that if he had been well provided with only one of these three helps, he would still have been master of Scotland, and probably also of England,--that if he had had three thousand regular troops he would have penetrated into England immediately after the battle of Preston, and as George II. was then absent from the kingdom, and the English troops in Flanders, he could have marched to London without opposition,--that had he been supplied with provisions he could have pursued General Hawley after the battle of Falkirk, and destroyed all his army, which was the flower of the British troops. Finally, that if he had received two months earlier only the half of the money which his majesty had sent him, he would have fought the Duke of Cumberland on equal terms, and he would certainly have beaten him, since with four thousand men only he had kept victory in suspense, though opposed by an army of twelve thousand. Having thus stated the causes to which the failure of his expedition was owing, Charles proposed that Louis should furnish an army of eighteen or twenty thousand men, which he stated he would employ usefully for their mutual interests, which he considered inseparable.[1311]

Charles appears to have conducted himself, hitherto, with great moderation; but as no notice was taken of his demand for troops, he grew violent and imperious. The French ministry had, by order of Louis, granted a sum of sixty-two thousand nine hundred livres for the relief of such of Charles’s adherents as had arrived in France,[1312] and Louis himself now offered him a pension suitable to his rank; but he refused to accept it. James, who was fully informed of the circumstances of Charles’s behaviour, thus expostulates with him:--“The truth is, I dread your feeling severely one day the consequence of your present conduct towards the court of France; for although, on account of the obligations they owe you, they may, out of a certain prudence and policy dissemble for a time, yet by gaining the ill-will of those ministers, and by carrying things too high, you will sooner or later certainly feel the bad effects of it; whereas, had you received what the king of France lately offered you, it was still putting yourself in the possession of feeling the effects of his generosity, and you would have probably got much more in time in some shape or another.”[1313] Count D’Argenson also was very complaisant to Charles; but James cautioned him not to infer therefrom, that his conduct was approved of by that minister.

Waiting upwards of two months, and receiving no answer to his memorial, Charles addressed a letter to Louis on the 12th of January, in which, after alluding to the favours his majesty had granted to his companions in misfortune, which he regarded as a new proof of his majesty’s generosity towards his family, he stated that his object in coming to the court of France was to propose a plan of an expedition, which would be much more advantageous for both parties than the former;--that this object alone occupied all his thoughts, and that every other step which had been proposed to the king of France to promote his personal interests, had been done without his sanction. He concluded a longish letter, written in his usual loud style, by telling Louis that as he could not appear in the way in which he was persuaded his majesty wished in his own heart to see him, he would retire to some place where his present condition would be of less consequence, and where he would be always ready to concur with the king of France in such steps as might contribute to his glory, and the restoration of his family to their just rights, and he trusted his majesty would approve of his resolution. He added, that if, during his absence, the king of France should find it convenient to think seriously of another expedition, he would immediately return to the court on being informed of his majesty’s wish, and that, in the meantime, he would appoint a person at Paris who had his entire confidence to negotiate in his behalf with the king of France and his ministers.[1314]

As neither Louis nor his ministers had any intention of entering into Charles’s views, they must have been well pleased with his determination to retire from Paris, where his presence had become exceedingly annoying; but some of his adherents regarded such a step with different feelings, as they thought it would be highly injurious to his interests. Among those who took an active part in opposing this resolution, was young Lochiel. No man was more firmly bent upon another attempt than this high-minded chief, and instead of thinking with Charles, that no expedition should be undertaken without a large force, he was for accepting any succours that could be obtained. Some time after his arrival at Paris, he had opened a correspondence with the Chevalier de St. George, in which he represented to him that the misfortunes which had befallen his cause, though great, were not irretrievable, provided timely measures were adopted for checking the depopulating system which the English government seemed to have adopted. He stated that the ruin of the Scottish adherents of the exiled family would dispirit their friends in England so much, that a restoration would become extremely difficult, if not impracticable, and that, at best, it could only be effected by an army superior to all the forces of the government; whereas, if ten regiments only were landed in Scotland before the Highlands were depopulated, not the Highlanders merely, but all other Scotchmen of spirit would unite in their support, and give so much employment to the troops of the government, that the English Jacobites might, with little assistance, be in a condition to shake off the yoke. He, therefore, advised the Chevalier to accept of whatever succours might be offered. Acting upon principles of the purest disinterestedness, Lochiel was opposed to every proposal which might seem to imply an abandonment of the cause which he had espoused, and when informed by Charles that an application had been made to the French court for a regiment to Lord Ogilvy, he told him that he disapproved of it, as such an application might make the court of France regard the affairs of the exiled family to be more desperate than they really were, and might prevent them from granting a body of troops for a new expedition. Charles seemed to concur in this view; but Lord Ogilvy having obtained a regiment, Charles proposed to ask one for Lochiel also. He objected, however, to the application being made, and told his royal highness that Lord Ogilvy, or others, might incline to make a figure in France, but that his ambition was to serve his country, or perish with it. Charles remarked that he was doing every thing in his power to forward his cause, and persisting in his resolution to procure a regiment for his faithful friend, Lochiel consented to accept of it if obtained, from respect to the prince, though he declared his determination to share the fate of the people he had undone, and if they were to be sacrificed to the vengeance of the government, to fall along with them.[1315] Lochiel now endeavoured to persuade Charles to remain at Paris, and represented to him the bad consequences that might ensue to his affairs by retiring; but his resolution was fixed.

Charles had in fact resolved to pay a visit to the king of Spain, and his retirement to Avignon, whither he announced his intention to proceed, was a mere blind to conceal his design from the court of France. The Chevalier, desirous in the present posture of his affairs of paying his court to his Catholic majesty, had been, for some time, applying for permission to send his youngest son to Spain. He announced his intention to Charles, and stated that he considered it would be for his interest, that while one of his sons was in France, the other should be in Spain.[1316]

When James felt so uneasy in reference to Charles’s deportment towards the French ministry, as to write him repeated remonstrances on the subject, it may be supposed that he would have been gratified at his resolution to retire to Avignon, more particularly as the Chevalier’s agents at Paris, who had been discarded by Charles, would have probably regained the little influence they had with the French court; but James was equally disappointed with the prince’s friends at Paris at Charles’s determination. In a letter which he wrote to the prince in answer to one from the latter, dated the 21st of January, stating his intention to retire to Avignon, James stated the great concern which he felt, at a step of which he could not comprehend the meaning, and that nothing, in his opinion, could justify it but a resolution on the part of the king of France not to allow him to remain in that kingdom.

Charles left Paris for Avignon about the end of January, 1747. During his stay at Paris, he had evinced a laudable anxiety to mitigate the sufferings of his companions in misfortune by acts of kindness; but there was one among them who met with neither sympathy nor gratitude at his hands. This was Lord George Murray, who had sacrificed more for him than any other individual then living. Aware of this feeling of Charles towards him, Lord George did not visit Paris on his arrival in Holland in December; but, after some stay, proceeded to Rome to pay his respects to the Chevalier de St. George. Charles, however, appears to have expected him at Paris; and in the event of his arrival there during his absence, he left written instructions with his brother Henry, to do every thing in his power to get him arrested and committed to prison.[1317]

Shortly after Charles’s departure his brother, Henry, received a notification from his father, of his intention to send him to Spain. He immediately sent a copy of the Chevalier’s letter to Charles, and stated his regret at the prospect of being removed to such a distance from his brother; but instead of thanking him for this kind expression of his feelings, Charles returned him a very petulant answer. He informed him that, while in Scotland, he had formed a design of going to the court of Spain himself, and that he had left Paris with that intention,--that having resolved to make the journey, he had not asked leave from his father for fear of being refused,--and that he intended to go and return with all imaginable privacy. He entreated Henry, by all the ties of brotherly affection, and by the regard which he had for his success of the cause, not to start from Paris though he should get leave, until the result of Charles’s journey was known. He requested him to confide the secret of his journey to the king of France upon receipt of his next letter, and to represent to Louis that he had suddenly taken the resolution of making a journey to Spain after his arrival at Avignon. Henry, whose character was extremely mild and conciliating, stated, in reply, that he had communicated “the king’s letter” to him as soon as he had received it, and that his province in that, as in every thing else, was blind obedience; but he observed, that his father could not foresee Charles’s resolution, and that if his going to Spain would change the system Charles seemed to have proposed to himself, he would not make use of any leave he might obtain without receiving farther orders, which, he was convinced, would be to remain at Paris, whenever his father knew of Charles’s determination to proceed to Spain.

Accompanied by Kelly, Dr. Cameron, and two or three domestics, Charles left Avignon early in 1747, and repaired to Madrid; but his reception appears to have been cold and formal, and he did not even see the queen-dowager, whom he was particularly anxious to meet. Alluding to this visit, the Chevalier observes to Charles, “I am much more concerned than surprised you had not a better reception in Spain; but I am in hopes your going thither will be of no ill consequence, provided you manage your matters in a proper manner on your return to Paris.”[1318]

In a memoir which Charles presented to Caravajal on the 6th of March, to sound the intentions of the Spanish court, he requested to be informed, in the event of the king of France agreeing to fit out an expedition in his favour, what aid his Catholic majesty would contribute in its support. He required that 30,000 fusils and 10,000 sabres should be set apart for his use in a convenient place, in order that when occasion required he might obtain them at once in a quiet manner. That two or three small ships should be got ready as soon as possible, and loaded with grain, to be sent to Scotland under the charge of a gentleman he would send along with them. That the king of Spain should give him commissions for three Scotch regiments, which, when completed, should be formed into a brigade.[1319] In answer to these demands, Caravajal stated, that his master could spare no ships of war to assist in the expedition, as he had only seventeen in Europe, that some of these were disabled, and that the rest were employed in the Italian war; that as to arms, orders would be given to manufacture the required number; and that arrangements would be made for carrying his demand for a supply of grain into effect. Finally, that as to the proposal about the regiments, he believed his majesty would give his consent to it.

After remaining four or five days at Madrid, Charles retired to Guadalaxara till he should obtain a definitive answer on the subject of raising the regiments. His Catholic majesty at last consented, but stipulated that none but Scotchmen should be admitted into these regiments, a condition which, under existing circumstances, rendered their formation impracticable.[1320] Finding his journey thus in a manner unavailing, Charles returned to Paris, where he arrived on the 24th of March.

It is probable that Charles’s return to Paris was hastened by a remonstrance sent to him by Lochiel on the subject of his retirement to Avignon. This zealous chief represented to the prince that peace was the topic of general conversation, and as there existed a universal desire for it in France, there was reason to believe that George II. and his allies would obtain any terms they might ask in relation to Charles. He proposed,[1321] that if Charles could not obtain from France such an embarkation of troops as would enable him to land in England and overturn the government at one blow, he should endeavour to get an embarkation for Scotland, where the disposition of the people was still so favourable, that if he could return to the Highlands with artillery, arms, and ammunition, and only four or five battalions of foot, he believed he would not only relieve his distressed friends, and save the remainder of the country from ruin, but deliver all Scotland from the slavery to which he supposed it would soon be reduced.

Charles accordingly renewed his application to Louis and his ministers, but did not succeed in bringing “these people to reason,” as he himself expresses it, or in other words, prevailing on them to accede to his demand. Baffled again in his attempt to induce the French government to engage actively in his cause, Charles contemplated a matrimonial alliance with the czarina, with the view of engaging her in his interest; but his father, to whom he communicated his design, considered it impracticable, and Charles appears to have immediately dropt it.

Notwithstanding the untoward appearance of his affairs, Charles was by no means discouraged; but the promotion of his brother to the cardinalate, which took place about three months after his return from Spain, damped his spirits. Henry had every reason to be dissatisfied with Charles’s conduct towards himself personally; but he made no complaints, and it was only owing to the peevish way in which Charles alluded to him in his letters to his father that James became apprised of his dislike to his brother.[1322] Being of a pious disposition, Henry became desirous of embracing the ecclesiastical state, and resolved to repair to Italy to consult his father upon the subject. As he knew that Charles would object to his departure from Paris, and might possibly take measures to prevent it, he went off without informing him. Charles complained to his father of Henry’s leaving Paris without acquainting him; but whilst James admitted that it was certainly not according to rule that Henry should have gone away without taking leave of Charles in person, he said he could not blame him for it under existing circumstances.

The first notice which Charles received of the intended promotion of his brother was by a letter from his father, dated from Albano on the 13th of June, 1747.[1323] Charles was both grieved and enraged when he received this intelligence, and shut himself up for several hours to give vent to his sorrow or vexation. Hitherto Charles had drunk the health of his father and brother every day at dinner, but he now discontinued that of Henry, and forbade every person about him ever to mention his name in his presence.[1324] The friends of the family regretted exceedingly this step on the part of Henry, which they considered a very imprudent one, so far as the expected restoration of the Stuarts was concerned, as it narrowed their prospects of success; but neither Henry nor James had any ambition for a crown, and the latter intended, if the succession opened, never to assume the diadem.[1325] Both the pope and James notified to the king of France the design of presenting Henry with a cardinal’s hat, and Louis in return signified his approbation of the step.

Among other subjects of uneasiness which pressed heavily upon Charles at this time, was the state of his pecuniary concerns. He still resolutely refused to receive any pension from the French court, and it was perhaps owing to this refusal that the French ministry showed no disposition to pay the allowances which had been granted to his adherents. To relieve the prince’s immediate necessities, his father had sent him an order on Waters, his banker at Paris, for fifteen thousand livres, significantly observing, however, that as Charles had refused the pension which Louis had offered, the Chevalier presumed that he had some other resource to supply his wants. James, however, had taken care that the obstinacy of his son should not stand in the way of Louis’s bounty, and he accordingly directed O’Brien his agent to draw the pension which Charles had refused, to apply the third part thereof for the use of his son, Henry, whilst in France, and to lay out the other two-thirds in the way he should be afterwards directed.[1326] Mr. John Grahame,[1327] in a letter to the Chevalier de St. George, represents the prince as having no visible means of subsistence, and that he could compare his “situation to nothing better than an immense labyrinth, out of which he had not a bit of thread to conduct him.” Charles was too proud to ask his father for aid; but the latter, on hearing of his difficulties, ordered O’Brien to pay forty thousand livres into O’Sullivan’s hands on his account, out of the sum he had drawn on account of Charles’s pension. The prince, however, consistently declined the money, knowing the source whence it came.

In the circumstances in which he was thus placed by his own obstinacy, Charles, who never displayed much generosity towards those who had offended him, was not in the best possible mood to exercise the virtue of forgiveness. His father had repeatedly written him in relation to his threatened seizure of Lord George Murray, and had strongly inculcated the propriety of forgiving a man who had suffered so much in his cause; but Charles disregarded these paternal admonitions. Lord George was very desirous to effect a reconciliation, by making every reasonable submission that could be required of him, and for this purpose left Rome for Paris, where he arrived on the 10th of July. Charles was then living at St. Ouen, in the neighbourhood of Paris, and Lord George having, the day after his arrival, ascertained the place of his residence, intended to proceed thither early on the 12th, to pay his respects to the prince. His lordship was, however, prevented from carrying his intention into effect, by a message from Charles, who, hearing of his arrival in Paris, sent Mr. Stafford, one of his household, to Lord George, to inform him that it was the prince’s wish that he should not appear at St. Ouen, but that he would do well to leave Paris as soon as he could. Lord George requested Stafford to acquaint the prince that he had come to France with no other design but to pay his respects to him, and that he would punctually obey his orders by leaving France.

Notwithstanding frequent disputes with the French ministers, Charles always endeavoured to keep on good terms with their master; and when he defeated the confederates at Laffeldt, he wrote a letter expressive of the great joy he felt on the occasion. As every victory gained over the allies appeared favourable to his cause, he cannot be well blamed for entertaining such a feeling; but the existence of this document subverts the idea generally entertained, that Charles never expressed any satisfaction at the conquests of the French in Flanders. He was no doubt solicitous that Great Britain should maintain her honour in the field and on the ocean; but his patriotism was not so disinterested as to make him prefer that honour to the crown for which he was contending. It was not until he saw that he could no longer depend upon France for aid that his patriotism was roused.

Much as Charles trusted to his personal powers for negotiation, he soon found that it was no easy matter to bring the ministers of Louis “to reason;” and that, to be successful, it was necessary to obtain the aid of some experienced politician. He accordingly looked about him for one in whom he could repose his confidence, and fixed upon Lord Marischal as the person most likely to answer his wishes. To this nobleman, who was then living at Treviso, Charles despatched a letter in the month of August, in which he stated that his father had left him entire master, to employ such persons as were most agreeable to him, and that he might easily believe his first choice would light upon him. He informed him that his desire was that his lordship should join him with all convenient speed, and that he had too good an opinion of his loyalty and regard for his bleeding country to make him have the least doubt of his compliance, especially since all the causes of discontent which his lordship might heretofore have had, were now quite removed. Highly complimentary as this letter was, Lord Marischal declined the honour intended him. He stated that he had not retired from public life till he saw how useless his services were, and must have been had they been continued; and that the broken state of his health required that he should pass the rest of his days in quiet.[1328]

Disappointed in his advances to Lord Marischal, Charles gave himself up entirely to the direction of George Kelly, his secretary, who, it is alleged, was personally obnoxious to the French court. To counteract the rising power of this new favourite, the pernicious influence of whose counsels some of the adherents of the exiled family were already beginning to feel, Sempil, one of the Chevalier’s agents at Paris, by desire of Lochiel and Drummond of Bochaldy, drew up and forwarded a representation to James in the month of June 1747. The Chevalier, who was not a bad judge of mankind, foreseeing the bad consequences that would follow if Kelly was allowed to guide the councils of the prince, had cautioned Charles against his interference shortly after his return from Scotland; but the prince attributed his father’s dislike to Kelly to the misrepresentations of his enemies. In a letter, alluding to some complaints made by Charles against his brother, James observes, “What you now write to me is manifestly the product of Kelly’s malice ... as long as you are directed or influenced by him, depend upon it nothing will go well with you, and you will never have a moment’s quiet yourself.”[1329]

These admonitions, which were repeated after Drummond’s communication, were, however, thrown away upon Charles, who clung to his secretary with as great pertinacity as ever. This predilection for Kelly, if the statement of Sempil is to be credited, ruined the prince’s negotiations with the French ministry, who, according to him, would have entertained a proposal made by the Marquis de Puyzieux, of embarking a force for Scotland on the dissolution of the British parliament; but the design was given up, because the persons in whom Charles seemed to repose his confidence were obnoxious to the French court, and were considered unworthy of trust.[1330]

Whilst the French government evaded Charles’s demand for a supply of troops, it acceded in other respects to his wishes. A regiment was given to Lochiel,[1331] the arrears of the gratuities granted to the Scotch exiles were paid up, and a fixed allowance of thirty-six thousand livres per annum was granted to them, the appropriation of which was left entirely to the prince. Having thus provided for his friends, the French ministry thought that Charles’s repugnance to a pension might be overcome; and accordingly M. de Lally, who was directed to communicate to him the largess granted to his adherents, was also appointed to sound him on the subject of an allowance to himself. Charles, writing to M. de Puyzieux, observed, that he would accept with pleasure even the smallest favour his majesty was disposed to grant; but he begged that nothing should be given him in name of a pension, and that he should be permitted to deny to his English friends, even face to face, that he was in the receipt of it.[1332] It thus appears that Charles’s objection to a pension did not proceed from any disinclination to receive the money, but from an apprehension that the circumstance of his becoming a pensioner of France would injure him with his English friends. It is not known whether the French government acted upon Charles’s suggestion.

It was the policy of the French court, whilst the war lasted, to keep up appearances with the exiled family, so as to encourage the belief that it really intended to aid in its restoration. This notion was strengthened by the appointment of Lord Ogilvy and Lochiel to the command of regiments; and the fears of an invasion after Charles’s return to France are said to have delayed for a time the embarkation of the British troops for Flanders. This system of intimidation would in all probability have been persevered in had not France become tired of a war which had exhausted her treasury, destroyed her commerce, and almost annihilated her navy. The confederates were equally weary of a war in which they had reaped neither honour nor advantage, and they therefore gladly availed themselves of an offer of pacification made by France. The belligerent powers accordingly agreed to hold a congress, which was opened at Aix-la-Chapelle in March 1748.

Charles now saw that all hope of an immediate restoration was at an end, and must have perceived, from the strong desire which existed in France for peace, and the low state to which that kingdom was reduced by the war, that his interests would form no bar in the way of a general pacification.

The first public step which Charles took to mark his displeasure with the conduct of the French government, in suing for a peace, was of a very decided character. When the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle was about to assemble, he gave instructions to the Sieur Roettier to strike a medal with his head, and the inscription, “Carolus Walliæ Princeps” (Charles Prince of Wales); and on the reverse the figure Britannia and a fleet of war-vessels, with the significant motto, “Amor et Spes Britanniæ” (The Love and Hope of Britain).

When the medal appeared it created a great sensation in France, and many of the French nobility were deeply offended at the device and motto, which they regarded as an insult offered to the nation. The prince of Conti, in particular, who was accounted one of the proudest men in all France, showed his chagrin on the occasion. Meeting Charles one day in the Luxembourg Gardens, Conti observed to Charles, with an air of pleasantry, under which a sneer was observed to lurk, that the device of his medal was not just so applicable as some persons might at first suppose, as the British navy had not shown any particular friendship for him. Charles, who at once perceived the censure, immediately replied, “That is true, Prince! but I am, nevertheless, the friend of the navy against all its enemies; as I shall always look upon the glory of England as my own, and her glory is in her navy.” About the time the medal was struck Charles sat for his portrait to Tocqué, the eminent painter, which was immediately engraved by Wille, the celebrated engraver, with the title “Carolus Walliæ Princeps.”

On the 30th of April, the preliminaries of a general peace were signed by the ministers of Great Britain, France, and the United Provinces, the basis of which was a general restitution of the conquests which had been made during the war. A suspension of arms almost immediately followed the signing of the preliminaries. Charles was not aware that the preliminaries had been signed till some time after the suspension of arms, and he consoled himself with the vain hope that peace was not so near at hand as was generally supposed.[1333]

During the negotiations Charles still went to court, though not so frequently as before, and always endeavoured to avoid any personal interviews with the king; but when informed of the signing of the preliminaries, he gave up his visits entirely. His father, and the adherents of his family, expected that he would no longer remain in a kingdom which was now again to sacrifice the interests of his house; but instead of evincing any disposition to depart, he gave a decided indication of fixing himself in Paris, by hiring a splendid hotel upon the _Quai de Theatin_ for himself and his principal friends, in order, as he said, to be near the opera, play-house, and the other places of public diversion in Paris. To show how little he regarded the proceedings at Aix-la-Chapelle, he appeared much gayer than usual, and when any person alluded, in his presence, to the congress, he seemed not to regard the matter, and waived the subject by singing or introducing some different topic of conversation.

To show, however, that he was not indifferent to his rights, Charles drew up a protest against any stipulation which might be entered into by the contracting parties, contrary to these rights, of which he sent a copy to the king of France, enclosed in a letter from himself. The Chevalier de St George, in ignorance of Charles’s protest, also published one in his own name, agreeably to a practice which he and his father, king James II., had followed, whenever any treaty with Great Britain was entered into.

After the preliminaries were signed, Louis took an early opportunity of intimating to Charles that he had renewed the engagements which he and his grandfather had formerly come under to the British government, in relation to the House of Stuart; but Charles, in his protest, entirely overlooked the stipulation which regarded his intended expulsion from the French territories. Louis probably expected that this hint would have been sufficient to induce Charles to quit France, but, as he indicated no intention to remove, the Marquis de Puyzieux, by desire of the king, sent a requisition in writing, to which he demanded an answer. Charles returned an evasive answer to M. de Puyzieux’s note the same day.

After this answer, matters appear to have remained _in statu quo_ till October, on the 7th of which month the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was finally concluded and signed. By this treaty the contracting parties agreed, without any limitation, to a literal insertion of the fifth article of the quadruple alliance, by which it was stipulated that neither the “Pretender,” nor any of his descendants, should be allowed to reside within the territories belonging to any of the parties to the treaty. Meanwhile Louis was looking out for a suitable asylum for Charles Edward. Knowing that the prince had declared that he would never return to Italy, he directed M. de Courteille, his envoy to the Cantons of Switzerland, to ask a residence for Charles in the city of Fribourg. The regency complied with the request, but Mr. Barnaby, the British minister to the Helvetic body, violently opposed the plan, and presented a remonstrance to the magistracy of Fribourg, couched in such terms as to draw upon him the censure of the regency.

The next person selected by Louis to act as negotiator with Charles was the Cardinal de Tencin, who was supposed to have some influence with him. The cardinal delivered the message with which he had been intrusted in the most delicate manner, and endeavoured to convince Charles, by a variety of arguments, of the regret the king felt at having been obliged to accede to the objectionable articles of the treaty. To reconcile Charles to the measure, the cardinal, it is said, hinted that the treaty might possibly be of short endurance, and that the prince might afterwards return to France with brighter prospects, but the cardinal left Charles without obtaining any satisfaction. Desirous of avoiding extremities, the king waited about two weeks in expectation that Charles would depart; but being informed that he made no preparations for his departure, he sent the Duke de Gesvres, the governor of Paris, with a message similar to that delivered by the cardinal. The duke, however, got as little satisfaction as the cardinal, and on a second interview, the prince absolutely refused to quit the country, and told the duke that there was a treaty prior to that of Aix-la-Chapelle between him and the king, from which he could not depart with honour.

The British ministry had for some time been urging the French court to fulfil that part of the treaty which related to the expulsion of the prince from the French territories; and the hostages[1334] complained that his being permitted to appear at all public places of amusement was as an insult to their sovereign, and an infringement of the treaty. Louis, therefore, sent the Duke de Gesvres a third time to expostulate with Charles on the 6th of November; but Charles again evaded a direct answer to the duke’s demand to quit France. Charles afterwards sent him an explicit answer in writing, in which he stated that it was with much regret he found himself compelled in defence of his own interests to oppose the intentions of the king on this occasion, and that he had already apprised his majesty of his design by a letter which he had written to M. de Puyzieux as far back as the 20th of August. He requested the duke to assure his majesty in the strongest terms that he would retain towards him during his life all the sentiments of respect and attachment which he had formerly expressed.[1335]

Louis was much annoyed at Charles’s obstinacy, as he felt great repugnance to push matters to extremities with a prince who could plead in his own justification a violation of a solemn contract which the king of France had entered into with him three years before. As he had, however, contracted with Charles merely in his character of prince regent, it appears to have occurred to Louis that he would save his honour if he obtained an order from the Chevalier de St George, requiring Charles to leave his dominions before having recourse to physical force. He therefore despatched a courier to Rome with a letter to the Chevalier, giving an account of the prince’s conduct, and requesting James to interpose his parental authority to induce Charles to leave his dominions. That James might be fully assured of the prince’s determination to remain in France contrary to his wishes, Louis also sent him Charles’s letter to the Duke de Gesvres.

The messenger returned to Paris early in December with a letter from James to the king of France, inclosing another to Charles, which, after perusing, he was requested to despatch to the prince. After complaining of Charles’s conduct towards himself, James told him that he saw him on the brink of a precipice, and that he would act the part of an unnatural parent if he did not do everything that depended upon him to save him from falling, and that he therefore found himself obliged to order him as his father and king to conform himself without delay to the wishes of the French king, by leaving his dominions with a good grace.

This letter Louis sent by the Duke de Gesvres to Charles, the duke at the same time carrying a letter from Louis, which is said to have contained a blank order to be filled up by the prince himself for a yearly allowance. Charles told the duke that he wanted no pecuniary favours from his majesty, and that it was not consistent with honour to comply with his demand to leave the French territories. The duke urging Charles to reconsider his resolution, the latter grew impatient, and told him that he would in future decline receiving any communications from any person but the king himself. The duke told him the thing was impossible, unless indeed he expected, what he could scarcely suppose he did, that his majesty was to come to the _Quai de Theatin_ in person. “In short, then, sir,” said Charles, “I have nothing farther to say than what I have said already,--pardon me, I have some business.” With these words Charles left the room, leaving the duke in amazement.

Long before the French public were aware of the intentions of their government in relation to the prince, the fame of his exploits, in connection with the fact of his being a descendant of _Henri Quatre_, had endeared him to the French nation; but when they found that he was to be sacrificed by their sovereign to state necessity, their admiration for his person was heightened into enthusiasm, and they looked upon the approaching struggle between Louis and his kinsman with feelings of the deepest interest. Every person was desirous to see a prince who had the courage to brave the grand monarch in his own capital, and whenever Charles appeared upon the public walks, he was followed by the assembled multitudes. When he entered the theatre, all eyes were directed towards him, and the performance was allowed to pass off unheeded by the audience. Charles alone seemed to make light of his misfortunes, and evinced the gaiety of his spirits by talking in an easy, cheerful, and affable manner to the young noblemen, by whom, on these occasions, he was always surrounded.[1336]

After trying every possible means to induce Charles to quit the French territory without effect, the ministry pressed the king to arrest him, and send him by force out of the kingdom. Louis was naturally averse to such a strong proceeding; but as he saw he could not fulfil the stipulation of the treaty regarding the exiled family in any other way, he reluctantly signed an order for his arrest. When putting his name to the warrant, he felt the extreme delicacy of the act, and pathetically exclaimed, “Poor prince! how difficult it is for a king to be a true friend!” This order, which was signed at three o’clock in the afternoon, was blazed all over Paris before evening. One of the prince’s retinue, who heard the intelligence, brought it to him; but Charles would not believe it. “Pish! pish!” he exclaimed, “an idle romance; they know I will obey my father.” Though no official notice was sent to Charles of the order, yet it is understood that means were taken to apprise him of his situation; and on the morning of the 10th of December, while walking in the Tuilleries, he was informed by a person of distinction that he would certainly be seized that very day if he did not prevent it by an immediate departure; but, instead of taking the hint thus kindly given him, he seemed to treat the intelligence as chimerical, and turning to one of his followers, gave directions that a box should be hired for him that night at the opera-house.

To carry the warrant into effect, no less than 1200 of the guards were in the course of the day drawn out, and posted in the court of the Palais Royal; a great number of sergeants and grenadiers, in cuirasses and helmets, filled the passages of the opera-house; and the police were placed in all the streets leading to it, to stop any carriages that might attempt to pass. Six intrepid sergeants of the grenadiers were ordered to seize the prince. Two companies of grenadiers took post in the court-yard of the kitchens, where the Duc de Biron, colonel of the French guards, disguised, waited in a coach to see the issue of the enterprise. The Mousquetaires, a body of French horse-guards, had orders to be ready to mount on horseback; troops were posted upon the road from the Palais Royal to Vincennes; hatchets and scaling ladders were prepared, and locksmiths directed to attend, in order to take the prince by escalade, in case he should throw himself into some house, and there attempt to stand out a siege. A physician named Vernage, and three surgeons, were also ordered to be in readiness to dress such of the troops as might be wounded. These extensive preparations can only be accounted for on the supposition that the government was apprehensive that an attempt would be made by the Parisians to rescue the prince.

Charles received several notes during the day, giving him notice of the measures taken for securing him; but he resolved to brave the danger. He accordingly left his hotel in his carriage, accompanied by three gentlemen of his household, at a quarter after five o’clock, for the opera-house, and, in passing through the street St Honoré, was warned by a friendly voice not to proceed, as the opera-house was beset. He proceeded onwards, however, and on entering the _cul-de-sac_, leading to the opera-house, the barriers were drawn, and the doors of the opera-house shut. On alighting from his coach, he was instantly surrounded by the six sergeants, disguised as tradesmen, who seized his person, and, lifting him off the ground, carried him through the _porte cochère_, at the end of the passage which led into the court-yard of the Palais Royal. M. de Vaudreuil, major of the blue guards, who, with some officers, had remained behind the gate, then approached his Royal Highness, and said, “Monseigneur, I arrest you in the name of the king, my master.” Charles, without betraying any emotion, answered that the manner was a little too violent. The sergeants, thereupon, carried him into a room on the ground floor of the palace, possessed by a surgeon of the Duke of Orlean’s household. The major demanding his arms, Charles presented his sword, but suspecting that he had other weapons about him, the sergeants, by De Vaudreuil’s order, searched his person, and found a pair of pocket pistols and a penknife, of which they took possession. Charles remarked that he had carried a pair of pistols about with him ever since he returned from Scotland. The major had provided himself with thirty-six ells of black silk ribbon[1337] with which to tie the prince, and on hearing him give directions to that effect, Charles offered his parole that he would hurt neither himself nor any other person, and added that he thought so many persons were quite sufficient to guard one unarmed man without resorting to such a step. The major consulted the Duke de Biron, who ordered that the prince should be bound. Charles was accordingly tied in five different places. In this situation he was put into a hired coach, attended by the major and two captains of the blue guards, and was driven, under a strong guard, to the castle of Vincennes, into which he was received by his friend M. de Chatelet, the governor, who placed him in a small upper apartment in the Tower, and treated him as well as his duty permitted him. The only person who remained with him in his confinement was Neil Mac Eachan, who had attended him in his perilous journey from Uist to Skye. Charles had borne the indignity offered him with great composure, the disgrace attending which, he told M. de Vaudreuil, could only affect his master; but after he found himself shut up in the castle, his feelings were overcome, and he is said to have clasped his hands together and to have burst into tears. “Ah! my faithful mountaineers,” he pathetically exclaimed, “from _you_ I never would have received such treatment. Would to God I were still among you!” Meanwhile the three gentlemen who had attended Charles to the opera were also seized, and five others, who were by chance at his house, and all his servants were sent to the Bastile; his hotel was taken possession of by the lieutenant of police.[1338] Next day all the prince’s French servants were released.

The arrest of the prince created an extraordinary sensation in Paris; and next morning all the public places of the city were covered with pasquinades, which had been put up during the night, reflecting, in very severe terms, upon the conduct of the king and his ministers for their treatment of the prince. One of these was in the form of an order from King George, directed to Louis of Bourbon, as his viceroy, commanding and requiring him to seize, and, if necessary, to tie the person of Charles Edward Stuart, and to conduct him out of the kingdom of France; and that, if Louis should continue to please his master as he had hitherto done, he should be continued, by the king of England, in the viceroyalty of his kingdom of France. These placards were exceedingly annoying to the French court, and were torn down by the police with as great expedition as possible.

Charles was kept in confinement till the 14th December, on which day, in consequence of a correspondence which had passed between him and the king on that and the previous day, he was allowed to walk a few hours in the gardens. Having tendered his parole to leave the French territories without guards, Charles was released at seven o’clock, in the morning of Sunday the 15th, and departed for Fontainebleau, in a coach, under the charge of a commandant of musketeers. Messrs. Stafford and Sheridan, two gentlemen of his household, who had been set at liberty, followed him in two post-chaises. The remainder of Charles’s domestics were released a few days afterwards. On reaching Fontainebleau, Charles despatched a facetious note to a M. de Boile at Paris, requesting him to inform his friends that he carried himself well, that his head had never been off his shoulders, and that it was still upon them. From Fontainebleau Charles proceeded, by easy stages, to Avignon, where he arrived on the morning of the 27th of December, disguised in the uniform of a French officer of musketeers. He had received a letter from his father on the road, and four days after his arrival he despatched an answer acquainting him that he was “in perfect good health, notwithstanding the unheard-of barbarous and inhuman treatment” he had met with.[1339]

FOOTNOTES:

[1303] It is to be attended to, that in alluding to Charles’s proceedings on the continent the New Style is followed.

[1304] Letter among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1305] Letter from O’Bryen to the Chevalier, 17th October, 1746, in the _Stuart Papers_.

[1306] Letter from the Chevalier to Charles, 6th January, 1747.--_Stuart Papers._

[1307] _Authentic Account._ The writer of this account, who states that he obtained his information from an eye-witness, says that when Charles arrived at Paris he could not be prevailed upon to take any refreshment, but instantly proceeded to Versailles, to see the king, and that though Louis was at that time engaged in council on some affairs of importance, he immediately quitted it to receive him. He then relates the interview as above stated, and says that Charles was afterwards publicly received at Fontainebleau in the character of the Prince Regent of England, Scotland, and Ireland. It is certain, however, that the first time that Charles met Louis after his return to France was at Fontainebleau, and it is equally certain that he was never recognised at court as a British prince.

[1308] Both these letters will be found among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1309] Letter from O’Brien to the Chevalier de St. George, 31st October, 1746, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1310] Of the unlimited confidence which these two favourites enjoyed with Charles the _Stuart Papers_ afford abundant proofs. Sheridan in fact directed every thing when Charles was in Scotland, and it was solely owing to his aversion to a hill campaign,--the fatigue of which he said he could not endure,--that Lord George Murray could not prevail upon Charles to desist from engaging the Duke of Cumberland at Culloden; yet so great was the ascendency which Sir Thomas had acquired over the mind of Charles, that the ruinous result which ensued did not in the least weaken it. Edgar announced Sheridan’s death to Charles in a letter dated 2d December, 1746, and sent along with it all the papers found in Sir Thomas’s repositories having relation to the Prince or his affairs, among which was a sketch of a dying speech which Sir Thomas had prepared in case he had been taken and executed. Dr. King insinuates, from the ignorance of Charles, that Sheridan was in the pay of the English government; but it would be doing injustice to the memory of the favourite to believe him guilty of such baseness without direct proofs of his criminality. The Doctor’s words are: “His (Charles’s) governor was a protestant, and I am apt to believe purposely neglected his education, of which, it is surmised, he made a merit to the English ministry; for he was always supposed to be their pensioner. The Chevalier Ramsay, the author of Cyrus, was Prince Charles’s preceptor for about a year; but a court faction removed him.” The illiterateness of Charles is very perceptible in his ignorance of the orthography of French and English. Both in style and orthography they contrast most unfavourably with those of his father, whose epistolary correspondence cannot fail to give the reader a favourable idea of his literary acquirements. Though James appears to have had a good opinion of Sir Thomas, yet after his death he complained bitterly to Charles, in a long and very interesting letter, (that of 3d February, 1747, in the _Stuart Papers_,) of the conduct of the favourite, and in general of the other persons who obtained the Prince’s confidence. It was James’s deliberate conviction that their object was to corrupt Charles, by withdrawing him from his “duty to God in the first place, and to him in the second!” The sequel of Charles’s unfortunate history seems to confirm this opinion. A most unfavourable sketch of the character of Kelly, the new favourite, is given by Father Myles Macdonell, his own relative, for which see the Father’s letter to the Chevalier de St. George, 4th May, 1747, in the _Stuart Papers_.

[1311] There are two copies of this memoir among the _Stuart Papers_. One of them written in the first person, and holograph of the prince, is titled, “Memoir to ye F. K. from me of 10th Nov. 1746.” The other is titled, “Ancien Project de Memoire,” and is written in the third person.

[1312] Statements showing the division of this money, will be found in the _Stuart Papers_.

[1313] Letter from the Chevalier to Charles, 6th January, 1747.--_Stuart Papers._

[1314] Letter from Charles to Louis, 12th January, 1747, in the _Stuart Papers_. Sir James Stewart appears to have been the person Charles intended to appoint, as there is a draught of a commission in his hand-writing among these papers, bearing the date of 29th December, 1746.

[1315] Letter from Lochiel to the Chevalier de St. George, of 16th January, 1747, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1316] Letter from the Chevalier to Prince Charles, 13th January, 1747.

[1317] This circumstance, so disgraceful to the memory of Charles, is mentioned in a letter from Prince Henry to his father, dated Paris, 30th January, 1747, under the signature of John Paterson, a name sometimes assumed by Henry, when corresponding in cipher. The original letter is among the _Stuart Papers_.

Lord George’s arrival at Rome was announced to Charles by the Chevalier, in a letter dated 21st March, 1747. The following extract places James’s character in a very favourable point of view: “I must tell you that I was much surprised t’other day at the arrival of Lord George Murray in this place. After having absconded many months in Scotland, he found means to come to Holland, and from thence by Venice here. By what Bramston, (the corresponding name of O’Sullivan,) says, I am sorry to find that you have not been pleased with him, but tho’ I questioned Bramston much about him, yet I own I don’t see any motive to suspect his fidelity and loyalty. People may have an odd, and even a wrong way of thinking, and may even fail in something towards ourselves, but may be men of honour and honesty with all that; so that considering his birth, and the figure he made in your service, and that you had never writ to me about him yourself, I thought it would be very wrong in me not to receive him with all kindness, and even distinction. I don’t know how long he will stay here, or how he proposes to dispose of himself, but I understand he has a mind to bring over his lady, and to live privately with her in some retired place. He is publicly here, for he has no measures to keep; and I must do him the justice to say that he never speaks of you but with great respect, and even eloge.” See also the letters among the _Stuart Papers_ from the Chevalier to Charles of 25th April, and 2d and 9th May, 1747, copied also from the original copies in the same collection. All of them, as far as they relate to Lord George, will be read with pleasure, but particularly the first.

[1318] Letters among _Stuart Papers_.

[1319] Vide Memoir, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1320] _Stuart Papers._

[1321] Letter from Lochiel to Charles, 23d February, 1747, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1322] See the Chevalier’s repeated remonstrances on this subject in his letters to Charles.

[1323] _Stuart Papers._

[1324] Father Macdonell’s letter to the Chevalier of 15th July, 1747, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1325] Letter from James to Charles, 13th January, 1747. See also two extremely interesting letters of 3d April, 1747, and 28th January, 1748, which also throw considerable light on the domestic differences which existed between Charles and his father.--_Stuart Papers._

[1326] Letter from James to Charles, 17th February, 1747, among _Stuart Papers_.

[1327] This gentleman had been long in the service of the Chevalier de St. George. His father acted as solicitor in Scotland to James II. He was knighted by the Chevalier, and acted for a considerable time as his secretary of state. He was with Prince Henry at Paris, and on his departure for Rome entered Charles’s household. He afterwards became a Roman Catholic. He went to Rome in 1759, at the desire of the Chevalier to act as his Secretary.

[1328] Vide Charles’s letter, and the answer, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1329] Letter of 10th February, 1747.

[1330] Vide the two papers presented by Sempil to the Chevalier de St. George in February 1748, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1331] Charles wished his father, on Lochiel’s appointment, to present the chief with a patent of peerage, which, with other patents, had been made out but kept latent. This James declined, as he thought that, by declaring Lochiel’s patent, he would disgust many deserving people, and particularly the other Highland chiefs. He very properly observed that Lochiel’s interest and reputation in his own country, and his being at the head of a regiment in France, would give him more consideration there than any empty title he could bestow.--_Letter from James to Charles, 7th November, 1747, among Stuart Papers._

[1332] Letter to M. de Puyzieux, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1333] Letter, Charles to his father, 13th May, 1748, _Stuart Papers_.

[1334] The Earl of Essex and Lord Cathcart, hostages sent to France until the restitution by Great Britain of Cape Breton.

[1335] Letter,--Charles to the Duke de Gesvres, among the _Stuart Papers_.

[1336] Authentic Account, p. 51.

[1337] Another account (G. Charles’s _Transactions in Scotland_) says that the material for binding was ten ells of crimson silk cord. This looks far more probable; if the major wished to make the binding of the prince effectual, “silk ribbon” would have been ridiculous. Still the anonymous letter referred to below is so circumstantial as to call it “a black ribbon, three fingers broad, and thirty-six ells long.”

[1338] Authentic Account, p. 63. Anonymous letter to Dr. Meighan, among _Stuart Papers_.

[1339] _Stuart Papers._