« PreviousContinue »
too small for those purposes which he deemed
44. Thus his marriage, instead of affording the prince that relief from embarrassment, which his friends said he had been led to expect from it, was, to him, a season of the deepest humiliation. Those friends were very loud in their reproaches against the minister; and the prince's brother, the Duke of CLARENCE (now WILLIAM IV.) said, in his place in the House of Lords, that, "when "the marriage of the prince was agreed upon, "there was a stipulation that he was to be ex"onerated from his debts."
45. The marriage had failed, therefore, of accomplishing one of its apparent objects. In such cases personal affection is never much to be relied on. The thing is altogether an affair of statepolicy; and, under circumstances such as have here been stated, it is but too natural to suppose that the other party in the marriage would derive no advantage from the disappointment of the above-mentioned pecuniary hopes. There were, indeed, added to the annual sum, 27,000l. for expenses of the marriage; 28,000l. for jewels and plate; and 26,000l. to finish the prince's palace of Carlton House: but, there was a control as to the expenditure of those sums, which were by no means to be spent by the prince. So that in fact, his pecuniary circumstances, his capacity of spending money, became lowered, and
greatly lowered, by his marriage, which of necessity augmented his household expenses.
46. It is very true, that 65,000l. a year, clear of all taxes, undeducted from by house-rent, furniture, repairs, and many other of those outgoings which so largely deduct from other men's incomes, was a sum so large, that one can hardly imagine how it was to be disposed of without an absolute throwing of it away. But having seen, that, during the seven years previous to the marriage, the prince had expended 140,000l. a year, we are not to be surprised, that he experienced deep mortification at being reduced to less than half the sum; and, especially when he saw his stipend placed in the hands of commissioners, responsible to the law for the distribution of the money.
47. This mortification was strongly expressed by his friends in parliament; and, certainly, anything more mortifying, more humiliating, cannot well be imagined than the provisions of the act relating to the application of the new settlement of 140,000%. a year. The commissioners were to be, the speaker of the House of Commons; the chancellor of the Exchequer; the master of the King's household; the accountant-general of the court of Chancery; and the surveyor-general of the crown-lands. They were to have complete power to examine all creditors on oath; to inquire into the origin and nature of every
debt; to watch over the future expenditure; and, in short, to be absolute, as to all the pecuniary affairs of the prince, who was placed under a guardianship and control as severe as if he had still been an infant, or something even lower in the scale of intellectual capacity.
48. FRANCIS DUKE OF BEDFORD, in adverting to these measures, in his place in parliament, vehemently censured the ministers. He said, that "a variety of circumstances would occur to "candid minds in extenuation of the errors of "the prince, which were of a juvenile description, "and did by no means call for asperity of cen
sure." The EARL OF LAUDERDALE said, that "it did not become so great and opulent a peo"ple to act with severity towards a young "prince, from who se virtues, abilities, and ac"complishments, they might justly expect to "derive so much contentment."
49. The nation, however, does not appear to have thought that thirty-three years of age was a very "juvenile" stage of life. If it were such, however, in this particular case, the nation could see no objection to a guardianship, and control such as are usual in the "juvenile" state. And as to those virtues and abilities of which the Earl of Lauderdale spoke, though no one was presumptuous enough to deny, or to express a doubt as to their existence; no one, on the other hand, appeared to be able to deduce a proof of them,
sulting; but before we say that a man is insulted, we must consider what the man is; and not merely what his rank is, but what his character is, and what his conduct has been; and if we thus consider in this case, we cannot say that there could be an insult inflicted; for, what, alas! was that character, and what had been that conduct?
From the Marriage of the King, in April, 1795, to the commencement of his Regency, in July, 1811.
53. It was not in reason nor in nature to expect, that a marriage, a marriage of mere state-policy, and attended by circumstances so mortifying to the husband as those detailed in the foregoing chapter, should be happy, especially when that husband had at his nod scores of women, equal in point of accomplishments and far surpassing in personal charms, the lady with whom it was his lot to be united; that such a marriage should be happy was not to be expected; but, it might have led to a life free from scandal, free from disgrace, free from cruelty to the disliked party, and free from measures throwing enormous burdens on the people; it might have been free from all these it might not have been made the cause of taking from the labour of the people a million of pounds, or thereabouts, in measures to bring