The Impeachment of The House of Brunswick Part 5

1783 11,962,718 12,000,000

1784 12,905,519 12,879,341

1785 14,871,520 10,990,651

Total 129,975,229 93,869,992

The American war terminated in 1783; but as the loans of the two following years were raised to wind up the expenses of that struggle, it is proper they should be included. The total expense of the American war will stand thus:--

Taxes 129,975,229

Loans 93,869,992

Advances by the Bank of England 110,000

Advances by the East India Company 3,200,000

Increase in the Unfunded Debt 5,170,273

Total 232,325,494

Deduct expense of a peace establishment for eleven years, as it stood in 1774 113,142,403

Net cost of the American war 119,183,091

In addition to this must be noted 1,340,000 voted as compensation to American loyalists in 1788, and 4,000 a year pension since, and even now, paid to the descendants of William Penn, amounting, with compound interest, to an enormous additional sum, even to the present date, without reckoning future liability. And this glorious colony parted from us in blood and shame, in consequence of a vain attempt to gratify the desire of the House of Brunswick to make New England contribute to their German greed as freely and as servilely as Old England had done.

Encouraged by the willingness with which his former debts had been discharged, George HI., in 1777, sent a second message, but this time for the larger sum of 600,-000, which was not only paid, but an additional allowance of 100,000 a year was voted to his Majesty, and 40,000 was given to the Landgrave of Hesse.

As an ill.u.s.tration of the barbarity of our laws, it is enough to say that, in 1777, Sarah Parker was burnt for counterfeiting silver coin. In June, 1786, Phoebe Harris was burnt for the same offence. And this in a reign when persons in high position, accused of murder, forgery, perjury, and robbery, escaped almost scot free.

In April, 1778, 60,000 a year was settled on the six younger princes, and 30,000 a year on the five princesses. These pensions, however, were professedly paid out of the King's Civil List, not avowedly in addition to it, as they are to-day. The Duke of Buckingham stated that in 1778, and again in 1782, the King threatened to abdicate. This threat, which, unfortunately, was never carried out, arose from the King's obstinate persistence in the worse than insane policy against the American colonies.

In December, 1779, in consequence of England needing Irish soldiers to make war on America, Ireland was graciously permitted to export Irish woollen manufactures. The indulgences, however, to Ireland--even while the Ministers of George III. were trying to enlist Irishmen to kill the English, Scotch, and Irish in America--were made most grudgingly. Pious Protestant George III. would not consent that any Irish Catholic should own one foot of freehold land; and Edmund Burke, in a letter to an Irish peer, says that it was "pride, arrogance, and a spirit of domination"

which kept up "these unjust legal disabilities."

On the 8th February, 1780, Sir G. Savile presented the famous Yorkshire pet.i.tion, signed by 8,000 freeholders, praying the House of Commons to inquire into the management and expenditure of public money, to reduce all exorbitant emoluments, and to abolish all sinecure places and unmerited pensions. Three days later, Edmund Burke proposed a reduction of the national taxation (which was then only a sixth part of its amount to-day), and a diminution of the power of the Crown. Burke was defeated, but shortly after, on the motion of Mr. Dunning, the House of Commons declared, by a majority of 18 against the Government, "That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."

On the 20th March, 1782, Lord North, in consequence of the impossibility of subduing the American colonies, determined to resign. The King opposed this to the last, declaring that no difficulties should induce him to consent to a peace acknowledging the Independence of America. "So distressing," says Jesse, "was the conflict which prevailed in the mind of George III., that he not only contemplated abandoning the Crown of England for the Electorate of Hanover, but orders had actually been issued to have the royal yacht in readiness for his flight." What a blessing to the country if he had really persevered in his resolution!

Charles James Fox, who now came into power for a brief s.p.a.ce, had, says Jesse, "taught himself to look upon his sovereign as a mere dull, obstinate, half-crazed, and narrow-minded bigot; a Prince whose shallow understanding had never been improved by education, whose prejudices it was impossible to remove, and whose resentments it would be idle to endeavor to soften."

In 1784, George, Prince of Wales, was over head and ears in debt, and the King, who appears to have hated him, refusing any aid, he resorted to threats. Dr. Doran says: "A conversation is spoken of as having pa.s.sed between the Queen and the Minister, in which he is reported as having said, 'I much fear, your Majesty, that the Prince, in his wild moments, may allow expressions to escape him that may be injurious to the Crown.'--'There is little fear of that,' was the alleged reply of the Queen; 'he is too well aware of the consequences of such a course of conduct to himself. As regards that point, therefore, I can rely upon him.'" Jesse says of the Prince of Wales, that between eighteen and twenty, "to be carried home drunk, or to be taken into custody by the watch, were apparently no unfrequent episodes in the career of the Heir to the Throne. Under the auspices of his weak and frivolous uncle, the Duke of c.u.mberland, the Prince's conversation is said to have been a compound of the slang of grooms and the wanton vocabulary of a brothel."

"When we hunt together," said the King to the Duke of Gloucester, "neither my son nor my brother speak to me; and lately, when the chase ended at a little village where there was but a single post-chaise to be hired, my son and brother got into it, and drove off, leaving me to go home in a cart, if I could find one." And this is the family Mr.

Disraeli holds up for Englishmen to worship!

In July, 1782, Lord Shelburne came into office; but he "always complained that the King had tricked and deserted him," and had "secretly connived at his downfall." He resigned office on the 24th February, 1783. An attempt was made to form a Coalition Ministry, under the Duke of Portland. The King complained of being treated with personal incivility, and the attempt failed. On the 23d March, the Prince of Wales, at the Queen's Drawing-room, said: "The King had refused to accept the coalition, but by G.o.d he should be made to agree to it."

Under the great excitement the King's health gave way. The Prince, says Jesse, was a member of Brooks's Club, where, as Walpole tells us, the members were not only "strangely licentious" in their talk about their sovereign, but in their zeal for the interests of the heartless young Prince "even wagered on the duration of the King's reign." The King repeated his threat of abandoning the Throne, and retiring to his Hanoverian dominions; and told the Lord-Advocate, Dundas, that he had obtained the consent of the Queen to his taking this extraordinary step.

Young William Pitt refusing twice to accept the Premiership, Fox and Lord North came again into power. 30,000 was voted for the Prince of Wales's debts, and a similar sum to enable him to furnish his house.

The "unnatural" Coalition Ministry did not last long. Fox introduced his famous India Bill. The King, regarding it as a blow at the power of the Crown, caballed and canva.s.sed the Peers against it. "The welfare of thirty millions of people was overlooked in, the excitement produced by selfish interests, by party zeal, and officious loyalty." "Instantly,"

writes Lord Macaulay, "a troop of Lords of the Bedchamber, of Bishops who wished to be translated, and of Scotch peers who wished to be reelected, made haste to change sides." The Bill had pa.s.sed the Commons by large majorities. The King opposed it like a partisan, and when it was defeated in the Lords, cried, "Thank G.o.d! it is all over; the House has thrown out the Bill, so there is an end of Mr. Fox." The Ministers not resigning, as the King expected they would, his Majesty dismissed them at once, sending to Lord North in the middle of the night for his seals of office.

On the 19th December, 1783, William Pitt, then twenty-four years of age, became Prime Minister of England. The House of Commons pa.s.sed a resolution, on the motion of Lord Surrey, remonstrating with the King for having permitted his sacred name to be unconst.i.tutionally used in order to influence the deliberations of Parliament. More than once the Commons pet.i.tioned the King to dismiss Pitt from office. Pitt, with large majorities against him, wished to resign; but George III. said, "If you resign, Mr. Pitt, I must resign too," and he again threatened, in the event of defeat, to abandon England, and retire to his Hanoverian dominions. Now our monarch, if a king, would, have no Hanoverian dominions to retire to.

In 1784, 60,000 was voted by Parliament to defray the King's debts. In consequence of the large debts of the Prince of Wales, an interview was arranged at Carlton House, on the 27th April, 1785, between the Prince and Lord Malmesbury. The King, the Prince said, had desired him to send in an exact statement of his debts; there was one item, however, of 25,000, on which the Prince of Wales would give no information. If it were a debt, argued the King, which his son was ashamed to explain, it was one which he ought not to defray. The Prince threatened to go abroad, saying, "I am ruined if I stay in England. I shall disgrace myself as a man; my father hates me, and has hated me since I was seven years old.... We are too wide asunder to ever meet. The King has deceived me; he has made me deceive others. I cannot trust him, and he will not believe me." And this is the Brunswick family to which the English nation are required to be blindly loyal!

In 1785, George, Prince of Wales, was married to a Roman Catholic lady, Mrs. Fitzherbert, a widow. It is of course known that the Prince treated the lady badly. This was not his first experience, the history of Mary Robinson forming but one amongst a long list of shabby _liaisons_. A question having arisen before the House of Commons, during a discussion on the debts owing by the Prince, Charles James Fox, on the written authority of the Prince, denied that any marriage, regular or irregular, had ever taken place, and termed it ah invention.... dest.i.tute of the slightest foundation. Mr. Fox's denial was made on the distinct written authority of the Prince, who offered, through Fox, to give in the House of Lords the "fullest a.s.surances of the utter falsehood" of the allegation; although not only does everybody know to-day that the denial was untrue, but in point of fact the fullest proofs of the denied marriage exist at this very moment in the custody of Messrs. Coutts, the bankers. Out of all the Brunswicks England has been cursed with, George I. is the only one against whom there is no charge of wanton falsehood to his ministers or subjects, and it is fairly probable that his character for such truthfulness was preserved by his utter inability to lie in our language.

Not only did George, Prince of Wales, thus deny his marriage with Mrs.

Fitzherbert, but repeated voluntarily the denial after he became King George IV. Despite this denial, the King's executors, the Duke of Wellington and Sir William Knighton, were compelled by Mrs. Fitzherbert to admit the proofs. The marriage took place on the 21st December, 1785, and Mrs. Fitzherbert being a Roman Catholic, the legal effect was to bar Prince George and prevent him ever becoming the lawful King of England.

The doc.u.ments above referred to as being at Coutts's include-- 1. The marriage certificate. 2. A letter written by the Prince of Wales acknowledging the marriage. 3. A will, signed by him, also acknowledging it, and other doc.u.ments. And yet George, our King, whom Mr. Disraeli praises, authorized Charles James Fox to declare the rumor of his marriage "a low, malicious falsehood;" and then the Prince went to Mrs. Fitzherbert, and, like a mean, lying hypocrite as he was, said, "O Maria, only conceive what Fox did yesterday; he went down to the House and denied that you and I were man and wife."

Although when George, Prince of Wales, had attained his majority, he had an allowance of 50,000 a year, 60,000 to furnish Carlton House, and an additional 40,000 for cash to start with, yet he was soon after deep in debt. In 1787, 160,000 was voted, and a portion of the Prince's debts was paid. 20,000 further was added as a vote for Carlton House.

Thackeray says: "Lovers of long sums have added up the millions and millions which in the course of his brilliant existence this single Prince consumed. Besides his income of 50,000, 70,000, 100,000, 120,000 a year, we read of three applications to Parliament; debts to the amount of 160,000, of 650,000, besides mysterious foreign loans, whereof he pocketed the proceeds. What did he do for all this money? Why was he to have it? If he had been a manufacturing town, or a populous rural district, or an army of five thousand men, he would not have cost more. He, one solitary stout man, who did not toil, nor spin, nor fight--what had any mortal done that he should be pampered so?"

The proposed impeachment of Warren Hastings, which actually commenced on February 13th, 1788, and which did not conclude until eight years afterwards, excited considerable feeling, it being roundly alleged that Court protection had been purchased by the late Governor-General of India, by means of a large diamond presented to the King. The following rhymed squib tells its own story. It was sung about the streets to the tune of "Derry Down":--

"I'll sing you a song of a diamond so fine, That soon in the crown of the monarch will shine; Of its size and its value the whole country rings, By Hastings bestowed on the best of all Kings.

Derry down, &c.

"From India this jewel was lately brought o'er, Though sunk in the sea, it was found on the sh.o.r.e, And just in the nick to St. James's it got, Convey'd in a bag by the brave Major Scott Derry down, &c

"Lord Sydney stepp'd forth, when the tidings were known-- It's his office to carry such news to the throne;-- Though quite out of breath, to the closet he ran, And stammer'd with joy ere his tale he began.

Derry down, &c.

"'Here's a jewel, my liege, there's none such in the land; Major Scott, with three bows, put it into my hand: And he swore, when he gave it, the wise ones were bit, For it never was shown to Dundas or to Pitt.'

Derry down, &c.

"'For Dundas,' cried our sovereign, 'unpolished and rough, Give him a Scotch pebble, it's more than enough.

And jewels to Pitt, Hastings justly refuses, For he has already more gifts than he uses.

Derry down, &c.

"'But run, Jenky, run!' adds the King in delight, 'Bring the Queen and Princesses here for a sight; They never would pardon the negligence shown, If we kept from their knowledge so glorious a stone.

Derry down, &c.

"'But guard the door, Jenky, no credit we'll win, If the Prince in a frolic should chance to step in: The boy to such secrets of State we'll ne'er call, Let him wait till he gets our crown, income, and all.

Derry down, &c.

"In the Princesses run, and surprised cry, 'O la!

'Tis big as the egg of a pigeon, papa!'-- 'And a pigeon of plumage worth plucking is he,'

Replies our good monarch, 'who sent it to me.'

Derry down, &c.

"Madame Schwellenberg peep'd through the door at a c.h.i.n.k, And tipp'd on the diamond a sly German wink; As much as to say, 'Can we ever be cruel To him who has sent us so glorious a jewel?'

Derry down, &c.

"Now G.o.d save the Queen! while the people I teach, How the King may grow rich while the Commons impeach; Then let nabobs go plunder, and rob as they will, And throw in their diamonds as grist to his mill.