_MISCELLANEOUS CARICATURES AND SUBJECTS OF CARICATURE, 1812-1819._
1812. REBUILDING OF DRURY LANE THEATRE.
Drury Lane Theatre, which was burnt down in 1811, was rebuilt the
following year, and the committee, anxious to celebrate the opening by
an address of merit corresponding to the occasion, advertised in the
papers for such a composition. Theatrical addresses, however, as we all
know by reference to a recent occasion,[18] are not always up to the
mark; and whether the result of their appeal was unsatisfactory, or
whether--as appears not unlikely--they were appalled by the number of
competitors, which is said to have been upwards of one hundred, not one
was accepted, the advertisers preferring to seek the assistance of Lord
Byron, who wrote the actual address which was spoken at the opening on
the 10th of October, 1812. Among the competitors was a Dr. Busby, living
in Queen Anne Street, who apparently unable to realize the fact that
competent men could have the effrontery to reject his "monologue,"
refused to accept the verdict of the committee. A few evenings
afterwards, the audience and the company were electrified by an
unexpected sensation. Busby and his son sat in one of the stage boxes;
and the latter, to the amazement of the audience, stepped at the end of
the play from his box upon the stage, and began to recite his father's
nonsense, as follows:--
"When energizing objects men pursue,
What are the prodigies they cannot do?"
DR. BUSBY'S "MONOLOGUE."
The question remained unanswered; for Raymond, the stage manager,
walked at this moment upon the stage accompanied by a constable, and
gave the amateur performer into custody. It is said that his father, not
content with this failure, actually made an attempt to recite the
"monologue" from his box, until hissed and howled down by the half
laughing, half indignant audience. The circumstance is commemorated by
an admirable pictorial satire entitled, _A Buz in a Box, or the Poet in
a Pet_, published by S. W. Fores on the 21st of October, in which we see
the doctor gesticulating from his box, and imploring the audience to
listen to his "monologue." Young Busby, seated on his father's Pegasus
(an ass), quotes one of the verses of the absurd composition, while the
animal (after the manner of its kind) answers the hisses of the audience
by elevating its heels and uttering a characteristic "hee haw." By the
side of Busby junior stands the manager (Raymond), apologetically
addressing the audience. Certain pamphlets lie scattered in front of the
stage, on which are inscribed (among others) the following doggerel:--
"A Lord and a Doctor once started for Fame,
Which for the best poet should pass;
The Lord was cried up on account of his name,
The Doctor cried down for _an ass_."
"Doctor Buz, he assures us, on Drury's new stage
No horses or elephants there should engage;
But pray, Doctor Buz, how comes it to pass,
That you your own self should produce there an ass?"
Dr. Busby was a person desirous of achieving literary notoriety at any
amount of personal inconvenience. He translated _Lucretius_, and is said
to have given public recitations, accompanied with bread and butter and
tea; but in spite of these attractions, the public did not come and the
book would not sell, facts which a wicked wag of the period ridiculed,
by inserting the following announcement in the column of births of one
of the newspapers: "Yesterday, at his house in Queen Anne Street, Dr.
Busby of a stillborn _Lucretius_."
1813.
The medical profession is ridiculed in a satire published in 1813:
_Doctors Differ, or Dame Nature against the College_.[19] Four
physicians have quarrelled in consultation over the nature of their
patient's malady, and the proper mode of administering to his relief.
Unable to convince one another, they wax so warm in argument that they
speedily proceed from words to blows. "I say," shouts one (beneath the
feet of the other three), "I say it is an exfoliation of the glands
which has fallen on the membranous coils of the intestines, and must be
thrown off by an emetic." "_I_ say," says another, raising at the same
time his cane to protect his head, "I say it is a pleurisie in the
thigh, and must be sweated away." "You are a blockhead!" cries a third,
furiously striking at him with his professional cane. "I say it is a
nervous affection of the cutis, and the patient must immediately lose
eighteen ounces of blood, and then take a powerful drastic." "What are
you quarrelling about?" asks a fourth, arresting the downfall of his
professional brother's cane. "You are all wrong! I say it is an
inflammation in the os sacrum, and therefore fourteen blisters must be
immediately applied to the part affected and the adjacents." The table
is down, and the prescriptions of the learned doctors covered with the
ink which flows from the ruined inkstand. The amused patient (whom
nature has meanwhile relieved of the cause and effect) watches the
combat from the adjoining bedroom, and makes preparations to retreat and
save both his "pocket and his life."
1814. JOANNA SOUTHCOTT.
The year 1814 was marked by the bursting of one of the most
extraordinary religious bubbles with which England has ever been
scandalized. The person identified with and responsible for the craze to
which we allude, was Joanna Southcott, the daughter of a farmer residing
at the village of Gettisham, in Devonshire, where she herself was born
in the month of April, 1750. At the time, therefore, the imposture was
made patent to such of her deluded followers as retained any remnants of
the small stock of common sense with which nature had originally
endowed them, Joanna was sixty-four years of age.
The village girl appears to have been a constant reader of the
Scriptures, which she studied with so much enthusiasm, that a strong
religious bias was established, which took almost entire possession of
her mind. Still, no marked peculiarity was manifested until after she
had attained forty years of age, at which time we find her employed as a
workwoman at an upholsterer's shop at Exeter. The proprietor being a
Methodist, the shop was visited by ministers of that persuasion, and
Joanna, with her "serious turn of mind," was not only permitted to join
in their discussions, but was regarded by these harmless folk somewhat
in the light of a prodigy. To a mind predisposed to religious mania (for
it would be unjust to stigmatize Joanna altogether as a wilful impostor)
the result was peculiarly unfortunate; she was visited with dreams,
which she quickly accepted as spiritual manifestations, instead of
being, as they really were, indications of a disordered digestion.
Two years afterwards Joanna retired from secular business, and set up as
a prophetess at Exeter. She declared herself to be the woman spoken of
as "the bride," "the Lamb's wife," the "woman clothed with the sun." The
county lunatic asylum might have done good at this point; but its
wholesome discipline, unfortunately, was not resorted to. She published
in 1801 her first inspired book, "The Strange Effects of Faith," which
absolutely brought five "wise men of Gotham" to inquire into her
pretensions from different parts of England. Three of these learned
pundits were Methodist parsons, and these three parsons declared
themselves satisfied that the mission of Joanna was a divine one. It is
needless to add that in England, no matter how absurd the nature of a
so-called divine mission, it is safe and certain to attract believers;
and by the year 1803 the doctrines of Joanna Southcott were eagerly
swallowed by numerous simpletons in various parts of the country.
Thus fortified, Joanna issued a manifesto, in which she stated her
calling and pretensions: we set it out in all the original baldness of
its composition:--
"I, Joanna Southcott, am clearly convinced that my calling is of God,
and my writings are indited by His Spirit, as it is impossible for any
spirit but an all-wise God, that is wondrous in working, wondrous in
wisdom, wondrous in power, wondrous in truth, could have brought round
such mysteries, so full of truth, as is in my writings; so I am clear in
whom I have believed, that all my writings came from the spirit of the
most high God."
Joanna was clear in whom she believed, and her followers were equally
"clear" in their belief in Joanna. This incoherent nonsense was signed
in the presence of fifty-eight simpletons, all of whom expressed their
confidence in the inspired mission of their precious prophetess.
Her disciples rapidly increased, and she visited in her apostolic
character, Bristol, Leeds, Stockport, and other large centres, obtaining
numerous converts everywhere. Among them was the celebrated engraver,
William Sharp; and to the last this man, who out of his calling was the
veriest simpleton living, and who had swallowed successively the
doctrines of Richard Brothers, Wright, Bryan, and Joanna, believed in
the divine mission of this unincarcerated lunatic.
Although Joanna did not (like Joseph Smith) discover a book, she
discovered a seal, which one of her disciples is said to have picked up
in a dust-heap at Clerkenwell. With this miraculously acquired talisman
the spirit ordered her to "seal up the people," and as "the people" were
limited to one hundred and forty-four thousand, and each of the elect
had to pay a sum varying at different times from a guinea to twelve
shillings, or even lower, for the privilege of being "sealed up," the
scheme promised at first to turn out a comfortably profitable one. Into
the details of the "sealing" it is unnecessary for us to enter. Suffice
it to say that the numbers of the "sealed," up to 1808, when for some
unexplained reason the process appears to have been discontinued,
exceeded six thousand simpletons; the numbers of her deluded followers
in the metropolis and its vicinity alone, are supposed at one time to
have amounted to a hundred thousand.
Joanna was a coarse, common-place, and somewhat corpulent woman; she
dressed in a plain, quaker-like garb, in a gown of Calimancoe, with a
shawl and bonnet of drab colour. The three leading preachers in her
chapel in Southwark (her great stronghold), were a Mr. Carpenter, who,
after learning his business, set up as a prophet on his own account; a
Mr. Foley, and a lath-render named Tozer. She had chapels also in
Spitalfields, Greenwich, Twickenham, and Gravesend.
The scribblings in prose and verse of this illiterate creature, instead
of being committed to the waste paper basket, were solemnly preserved
and received as prophecies. Attacked at last with dropsy, her delusions
assumed the following objectionable form: she prophesied, and Sharp and
his fellow-disciples--some of whom were men of fair education--actually
believed, that Christ was to be born again under the name of "Shiloh,"
and that she, Joanna, at the age of sixty-five, was to be the mother.
The revelation which proclaimed the miraculous _accouchement_ was worded
as follows: "This year [1814], in the sixty-fifth year of thy age, thou
shalt have a son by the power of the Most High; which if they (the
Hebrews) receive as their prophet, priest, and king, then I will restore
them to their own land, and cast out the heathen for their sakes, as I
cast out them when they cast out Me, by rejecting Me as their Saviour,
Prince, and King, for which I said I was born, but not at that time to
establish My kingdom."
One might have imagined that this gibberish would open the eyes of some
at least of her votaries: their insane enthusiasm, on the contrary,
increased. Joanna was absolutely inundated with the "freewill" offerings
of the faithful--a costly cradle, white robes, pinafores, shoes of satin
and worsted, flannel shirts, napkins, blankets, silver spoons,
pap-boats, mugs, silver tea-pots, sugar-basins, tongs, and
corals,--absolutely without number. The absurdity of the simpletons who
sent these offerings was severely criticised, both in England and on
the Continent; and by way apparently of answering her traducers, Joanna
inserted an apostolical advertisement in the _Morning Chronicle_ of
Thursday, 22nd September, 1814, and in the _Courier_ of Friday, 23rd, in
which she stated that, in consequence of the false and malicious reports
in circulation respecting herself, she was desirous of treating for "a
spacious and ready-furnished house to be hired for three months, in
which her _accouchement_ may take place in the presence of such
competent witnesses as shall be appointed by proper authority to prove
her character to the world." The appointed day--the 29th of
October--however passed by, and the prophecy remained of course
unfulfilled, although, in the manufacturing towns of the north, crowds
of the faithful assembled to wait the arrival of the coaches, in
expectation of tidings of the great manifestation. The satire entitled,
_Delivering a Prophetess_ (in vol. 8 of "The Scourge"), has reference to
the actual event which occurred on the 27th of December, 1814, when
death relieved Joanna of her delusions and her dropsy; the wretched
creature declaring on her deathbed that, "if she had been deceived, she
had at all events been the sport of some spirit, good or evil." Joanna
forms the subject of one of Rowlandson's caricatures of 1814, _Joanna
Southcott, the Prophetess, Excommunicating the Bishops_, published by
Tegg on the 20th of September, 1814. We shall also have to refer to her
again when we treat of the caricatures of George Cruikshank.
FLIGHT OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE.
This year (1814) the Princess Charlotte, heiress presumptive actually
ran away in a hackney coach, to avoid being affianced to the Prince of
Orange, to whom Her Royal Highness evinced an invincible repugnance. The
event is referred to in a caricature entitled, _Plebeian Spirit, or
Coachee and the Heiress Presumptive_ (published by Fores on the 25th of
July), which shows us the princess emerging from Warwick House, followed
by Britannia (who raises her hands in a suppliant attitude), and the
dejected British lion. "Coachman, will you protect me?" she appeals to
the driver. "Yes, yes, your Highness," replies the fellow, "to the last
drop of my blood!" A servant in the royal livery holds up his hands in
amazement and horror, while another spurs off in hot haste to apprise
the Regent of the flight of his daughter. But a satire of far superior
merit, entitled, _Miss endeavouring to excite a glow with her Dutch
Plaything_,[20] was issued by the same publisher a few days previously,
in which the rejected prince figures as a Dutch top, which the princess
has kept spinning for some time. "There," she says to her father at
last, "I have kept it up for a long while; you may send it away now, I
am tired of it; mother [_i.e._ the Princess Caroline] has got some
better plaything for me." "What! are you tired already?" exclaims the
Regent. "Take another spell at it, or give me the whip." "No, no,"
replies Her Royal Highness; "you may take the top, but I'll keep the
whip." Behind her is a picture representing an orange falling with Cupid
headlong into space. The Regent was so incensed at his daughter's
refractoriness, that he went at once to Warwick House and dismissed all
her attendants, and never forgave the Duke of Sussex for his supposed
share in breaking off the connection. It was immediately after this
event that her mother, the Princess Caroline, contrary to the advice of
her friends and well-wishers, applied for permission to make that tour
on the Continent which, owing to her own obstinate folly and contempt
for the duties of her high station, was destined--as we shall afterwards
find--to end in such disastrous consequences to herself.
1812 1815. AMERICA AND ENGLAND.
In the course of the year 1812, England had become involved--scarcely
through any fault of her own--in a war with the United States of
America. The causes of difference were mainly due to the obnoxious
Orders in Council, which had been _forced_ upon us in consequence of the
Berlin and Milan Decrees of Napoleon. As an evidence, however, of our
own friendly intentions, it may be mentioned that the Regent had issued
a declaration on the 23rd of April, that if at any time the obnoxious
decrees should by _an authentic act be absolutely_ repealed, thenceforth
the Orders in Council of 7th January, 1807, and 26th April, 1809, should
be revoked; and the American representative, having, on the 20th of
May, transmitted to the English Court a copy of a French decree of the
20th of April, by which the decrees of Milan and Berlin were declared to
be no longer in force, _so far as American vessels were concerned_, the
Regent declared that, although he could not accept the terms of the
decree as satisfying the conditions of his own declaration of the 23rd
of April, yet, with the view of re-establishing friendly relations, _he
revoked_ the Orders in Council of 7th January, 1807, and April 26th,
1809, so far as regarded American vessels and American cargoes. Of this
repeal, be it observed, the United States Government took no notice, it
might be in consequence of the very reasonable proviso annexed to the
Regent's concession, that unless the Government of the United States
revoked their exclusion of British armed vessels from their harbours,
while those of France were admitted, and their interdiction of British
commerce, while that of France was allowed, the order was to be of no
effect.
A very old English proverb tells us that "a stick is never wanting to
beat a dog;" and where one nation wishes to fasten a quarrel on another,
and the opportunity be favourable, there will be no difficulty in
finding an excuse. There were other causes of discontent; in particular
our claim to search not only for English goods, but for British seamen
serving on board neutral vessels; and as the sovereignty of the seas
depended on upholding these assumptions, our Government was as strenuous
in enforcing them as the French emperor was bent on the maintenance of
his continental system.
HOSTILE SPIRIT OF THE AMERICANS.
The Americans, however, were anxious for a war with this country, and in
particular, the opportunity seemed eminently favourable for attempting
the conquest of Canada. A motion in the House of Representatives, for
the indefinite postponement of a bill for raising 25,000 additional
troops, was rejected by a majority of 98 to 29. An outrageous bill,
specially intended as an insult to England, was introduced into the same
House about the end of April, "for the protection, recovery, and
indemnification of American seamen," the first clause of which declared
that every person who, under pretence of a commission from a foreign
power, should impress upon the high seas a native seaman of the United
States, should be adjudged a pirate and a felon, and should upon
conviction suffer death. Another of its articles gave to every such
seaman impressed under the British flag, the right of attaching in the
hands of any British subject, or in the hands of _any debtor of any
British subject_, a sum equal to thirty dollars per month for the whole
time of his detention. This monstrous bill was actually allowed to pass
a third reading. The temper of the Americans may be judged by the result
of the voting on Mr. Randolph's motion in the same House, on the 29th of
May. That gentleman submitted "that, under the present circumstances, it
was inexpedient to resort to a war with Great Britain." The question
being then put, that the House do proceed to the consideration of the
said resolution, it was negatived by 62 votes against 37. Under the
overpowering influence of these feelings, war was declared against
England on the 18th of June, 1812; our own declaration was not issued
until the 13th of October following.
"Our American cousins," did not wait for this joinder of issue; they had
invaded Canada early in July. On the 11th of that month, the American
General Hull, with a body of 2,500 men--regulars and militia--crossed
the river above Detroit with most disastrous consequences to himself. He
was speedily forced to retreat, and on the 16th of August to surrender
the important fort of Detroit itself, with his 2,500 men and
thirty-three pieces of artillery. Although this disaster seriously
disconcerted the American plans of invasion, the design was by no means
abandoned. A considerable force was assembled in the neighbourhood of
Niagara, and on the 13th of October, the American General Wadsworth,
with some 1,400 men, made an attack on the British position of
Queenstown, on the Niagara river. Wadsworth, with 900 men and many
officers, was speedily compelled to surrender to British forces not
exceeding the number of his own following.
AMERICAN NAVAL SUCCESSES.
On the other hand, the losses of the Americans on land were to some
extent balanced by their naval successes. On the 19th of August, the
English frigate _Guerriere_, Captain Dacres, was forced after a gallant
but (as we shall see) unequal fight, to strike her colours to the
American frigate _Constitution_, Captain Hull. Under similar conditions,
the English frigate _Macedonia_, Captain Carden, was forced on the 25th
of October, after an hour's hard fighting, in which the English lost 104
men killed and wounded, to yield to the American frigate _United
States_, Commodore Decatur. These successes were due to the following
causes: the rate of the American frigates corresponded to the largest
British; but in size, weight of metal, and number of men, were almost
equal to line-of-battle ships; the American navy too, at this time, was
manned by sailors many of whom were unfortunately British tars, while
many more had been trained in British service.
THE ENGLISH ASSUME THE OFFENSIVE.
Although we do not profess to give a history of the Anglo-American war
of 1812-14, some slight sketch of its more remarkable incidents seems
necessary for the purpose of enabling the reader to understand what has
to follow. Having named some of the American naval successes, we can
scarcely pass over the well-known fight of the 1st of June, 1813.
Captain Broke, of the British frigate _Shannon_, 330 men, burning with
indignation at the naval defeats of his countrymen, having diligently
perfected his crew in discipline, offered battle to the United States
frigate _Chesapeake_, for which he had long been watching. The
_Chesapeake_ was a fine ship, carrying forty-nine guns (18- and
32-pounders) and a complement of 440 men. The American captain, nothing
loth, bore down on his antagonist off Boston light-house. The ships were
soon in close contact; but the gallant English captain, discerning his
opportunity, gave orders for boarding, himself setting the example; and
after a sanguinary fight of only fifteen minutes, hauled down his
adversary's flag and carried off the _Chesapeake_ in triumph. The
invasion of Canada was still persevered in by the Americans, with
varying successes and defeats; but the results of the campaign of 1813
were in the end disastrous to them; and by the 12th of December, both
provinces of Canada were freed from the invaders, who retired to winter
quarters within their own territory. Another determined attempt to
penetrate into Canada was made by them in July, 1814, the British
troops in the first instance being obliged to fall back: this was on the
5th. Their triumph, however, was of brief duration. Veteran troops, who
had served under Wellington in Spain, had meanwhile arrived at Quebec;
General Drummond arrested the further retreat of Riall's division, and a
decisive battle ensued, which terminated in the defeat of the Americans,
who were obliged to retire with precipitation beyond the Chippewa. On
the following day they abandoned their camp, threw the greater part of
their baggage and provisions into the rapids, and after destroying the
bridge over the Chippewa, continued their retreat in great disorder to
Fort Erie. Out of a force of 5,000 men, they had lost in killed,
wounded, and prisoners at least 1,500. This defeat, and the timely
arrival of veteran troops from Europe, appear to have decided the
British commanders to change the defensive warfare they had hitherto
adopted, and the small operations they had conducted on the coast of the
southern States, for offensive movements of greater vigour.
A large naval force was despatched under the command of Vice-Admiral
Cockrane, having on board a powerful land force commanded by General
Ross. The latter landed on the 20th of August at Benedict; marched to
Nottingham on the 21st, and to Upper Marlborough on the 22nd, Admiral
Cockrane in the meanwhile, with the barges, armed launches, and other
boats of the fleet, having the marines on board, proceeding up the
Patuxent on the flank of the army. The American Commodore blew up his
vessels, seventeen in number, with the exception of one which fell into
the hands of the British. The troops reached Bladensburg (about five
miles from Washington) on the 24th.
BURNING OF WASHINGTON.
About 9,400 Americans (400 of whom were cavalry) drawn up to oppose
them, were speedily routed, with the loss of ten pieces of artillery and
the capture of their commanding officer, General Barney. It appears to
have been General Ross's first intention to return to his ships after
laying the capital under contribution; but the Americans having fired
upon the bearer of the flag of truce who was sent forward with the
conditions, all thoughts of an arrangement were dissipated. The
soldiers pressed into the city, and after burning a frigate and sloop of
war, the President's residence, the capitol--including the Senate House
and House of Representatives, dockyard, arsenal, war office, treasury,
and the great bridge over the Potomac, re-embarked on the 30th of
August.
A part of the operations against Washington consisted in despatching a
force against Fort Washington, situate on the Potomac below that city.
Captain Gordon, the commander of this expedition, proceeded with the
_Sea Horse_ and several other vessels up the river on the 17th of
August, but was unable to reach the fort till the 27th. The place being
rendered untenable by the explosion of a powder magazine, the garrison
spiked their guns and evacuated it next day. The populous and commercial
town of Alexandria, situated higher on the river, thus lost its sole
protection; and Captain Gordon, having no obstacle to oppose his
progress, buoyed the channel, and placed his ships in such a position as
to enforce compliance with his terms. The town (with the exception of
public works) was not to be destroyed nor the inhabitants molested on
compliance with the following articles:--All naval and ordnance stores,
public and private, were to be given up, together with all the shipping,
the furniture of which was to be sent on board by their owners; the sunk
vessels to be delivered in their original condition; the merchandise of
every description to be immediately delivered up, including all removed
from the town since the 19th; and the British squadron to be supplied
with refreshments at the market price. This capitulation was signed on
the 29th; the whole of the captured vessels--twenty-one in number--were
fitted, loaded, and delivered, by the 31st; and Captain Gordon had got
back with all his ships and prizes, and anchored in safety in the
Chesapeake by the 9th of September.
These events are referred to in a pictorial satire (published by Fores
on the 4th of October, 1814), entitled, _The Fall of Washington, or
Maddy_ [_i.e._, President Madison] _in full flight_:--
"Death of thy soul those linen cheeks of thine
Are counsellors to fear."
FLIGHT OF PRESIDENT MADISON.
James Madison and one of his ministers, habited as Quakers (a then
popular mode of ridiculing the Americans), are seen in full flight,
carrying under their arms bundles of compromising papers. By the "Bill
of fare of the Cabinet Supper at President Madison's, August 24th,
1814," which has fallen at his feet, the flight would really seem to
have been of the most hasty character. "I say, Jack," says an English
tar, pointing at the same time to the flying President, "what, is _that_
the man of war that was to annihilate us, as Master Boney used to say?"
"Aye, messmate," answers his companion; "he is a famous fighter over a
bottle of Shampain; why, he'd have played ---- with us if we had let him
sit down to supper." Five Americans (all Quakers) meanwhile make their
own observations on the situation: "Jonathan," says one, "where thinkest
thou our President will run to now?" "Why, verily," answers Jonathan,
"to Elba, to his bosom friend." "The great Washington," remarks a third,
"fought for liberty; but we are fighting for shadows, which, if
obtained, could do us no earthly good, but this is the blessed effects
of it." "I suppose," observes a fourth, "this is what Maddis calls
benefitting his country." "Why," answers his friend, "it will throw such
a light on affairs, that we shall find it necessary to change both men
and measures." The popular notion of the day that there had been some
understanding between "Boney" and the Yankees, was scarcely unnatural
under the circumstances we have narrated. The President himself is made
to say to his companion, "Who would have thought of this man, to oblige
us to run from the best cabinet supper I ever ordered? I hope you have
taken care of Boney's promissory notes; the people won't stand anything
after this." "D--n his notes," answers the other; "what are they good
for now? We should get nothing but iron; he hasn't any of his stock of
brass left, or some of _that_ would have helped us through this
business."
The caricaturist simply reflected the opinion of his countrymen in
insinuating that the Yankees had some understanding or sympathy with
Bonaparte; but in this they were mistaken. With Napoleon and his system
the Americans had no sympathy or feelings in common. Probably all that
the satirist intended to convey was the fact that they had brought the
retaliatory measure (severe as it was) upon themselves, and in this
undoubtedly he was right. The Americans would never have dreamed of
invading Canada had they not supposed that we were so hampered with our
struggle with Bonaparte in 1812. It was perhaps well for America that we
were not actuated by the same embittered feelings as themselves; that
our generals were incompetent, and their plans both badly conceived and
most inefficiently carried out.
THE CARICATURISTS TOO JUBILANT.
Notwithstanding these successes, the caricaturists proved a trifle too
jubilant. On the 11th of September, a British naval force--consisting of
a frigate, a brig, two sloops of war, and some gunboats--attacked the
American flotilla before Platsburg, on Lake Champlain, and after a
severe conflict were all captured, with the exception of the gun-boats,
Captain Downie, the English commander, being killed at the very
beginning of the engagement. Sir G. Prevost, in consequence of this
disaster, began his retreat, leaving his sick and wounded to the mercy
of the enemy. The Americans having now collected from all quarters, the
British retired to their lines, and relinquished all idea of penetrating
into the State of New York. On the 12th, however, an attempt was made to
enter Baltimore, and although in the engagement which followed the
American troops were broken and dispersed in the course of fifteen
minutes, the victory was dearly purchased by the death of General Ross,
while the defensive arrangements of the harbour were so perfect and so
formidable, that the attempt was obliged to be given up.
Although peace was concluded in the following December, the intelligence
unfortunately did not reach the belligerents in time to prevent further
mistakes and bloodshed. A series of operations of the British army in
the neighbourhood of New Orleans occupied the last week of December and
a part of January. An army had been collected for an attack on that town
under the command of General Kean, which, with the assistance of Admiral
Cochrane, was disembarked without resistance on the 23rd December. On
the 25th, General Sir Edward Pakenham arrived and assumed the chief
command. On the 27th, the enemy's picquets were driven in within six
miles of the town, where their main body was found most strongly posted,
and supported by a ship of war moored in such a position as to enfilade
the assailants. The result was that the assault of the British was
delivered under so withering a fire from every part of the enemy's line,
that General Pakenham was killed, Generals Keane and Gibbs wounded,
while over 2,000 men and officers were killed, wounded, or made
prisoners. Colonel Thornton, indeed, had crossed the river during the
previous night and captured a flanking battery of the Americans on the
other side; but the report made by him to General Lambert was of so
discouraging a character that he decided not to persevere with the
attempt, and in the end the whole army re-embarked, leaving a few of the
most dangerously wounded behind them, but carrying off all their
artillery, ammunition, and stores. The concluding operation of the war
was the capture of Fort Mobile, which surrendered to the British on the
11th of February.
1815. ROMEO COATES.
A remarkable figure puts in an appearance in the caricatures of the
early part of the century. This was the renowned "Romeo" Coates, a vain,
weak-minded gentleman, who had an absolute passion for figuring on the
boards as Romeo, Lothario, Belcour, and other romantic characters, for
which his personal appearance and lack of brains altogether unfitted
him. His "readings," like himself, being of the most original character,
his vagaries afforded endless amusement to the coarse public of his day.
The gods befooled him "to the top of his bent;" his overweening vanity
failing to show the poor creature that he was exciting ridicule instead
of applause. The fun (?) culminated in the tragic scene, Romeo, to their
delight, responding to the encores of his audience, by repeating the
dying scene so long as it suited the managers to prolong the sorry
exhibition. Macready, whose dramatic genius and refined sensibilities
revolted at a spectacle so degrading, describes him as he appeared at
Bath, in 1815: "I was at the theatre," says the tragedian, "on the
morning of his rehearsal, and introduced to him. At night the house was
too crowded to afford me a place in front, and seeing me behind the
scenes, he asked me, knowing I acted Belcour, to prompt him if he should
be 'out,' which he very much feared. The audience were in convulsions at
his absurdities, and in the scene with Miss Rusport, being really 'out,'
I gave him a line which Belcour has to speak, 'I never looked so like a
fool in all my life,' which, as he delivered it, was greeted with a roar
of laughter. He was 'out' again, and I gave him again the same line,
which, again being repeated, was acquiesced in with a louder roar. Being
'out' again, I administered him the third time the same truth for him to
utter, but he seemed alive to its application, rejoining in some
dudgeon, 'I have said that twice already.' His exhibition was a complete
burlesque of the comedy and a reflection on the character of a
management that could profit by such discreditable expedients." Poor
"Romeo" Coates lived to get over his theatrical weakness, and died (in
1848), in his seventy-sixth year, from the results of a street accident.
[Illustration:
_Published March, 1816, by S. W. FORES, 50, Piccadilly._
LEAP YEAR, OR JOHN BULL'S PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.
"When two ride upon a horse, one must ride behind."
_Face p. 50._]
1816. MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE.
The Princess Charlotte of Wales, having successfully thrown over her
royal Dutch suitor, was married at Carlton House to Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg, afterwards King of the Belgians, on the 2nd of May, 1816.
Prior to the marriage, Parliament had voted a provision for an
establishment for the pair of L60,000, while in the event of the
princess's death, L50,000 was settled on the prince during his life.
_Leap Year, or John Bull's Establishment_ (S. W. Fores, March, 1816)
shows us John Bull with a bit in his mouth, driven by Her Royal
Highness, who lashes him unmercifully with a tremendous horse-whip.
Miserable John is saddled with a pair of panniers, one of which carries
the prince and his money bags, the other being filled with heavy
packages labelled with different impositions or items of expenditure of
which John is the victim. "Plans for thatched cottages," "Plan for
pulling down and rebuilding," "Assessed taxes," "Increase of salaries,"
"Army for peace establishment," and so on. Says Leopold to the princess,
"You drive so fast, I shall be off!!!" "Never fear," she replies; "I'll
teach you an English waltz." The gouty Regent hobbles after them on his
crutches, the supports of which are formed of dragons from his famous
Brighton Pavilion. "Push on!" he shouts to his daughter and future
son-in-law, "Push on! Preach economy! and when you have got your money,
follow my example." "Oh! my back," groans poor John, crawling with the
greatest difficulty under the weight of his heavy burdens. "I never can
bear it! This will finish me."
POPULAR DISCONTENT.
The two years which succeeded the fall of Bonaparte were remarkable for
the distress which prevailed amongst the industrial classes in England.
The glory we had reaped in our long struggle with France was forgotten
in the consideration of the almost insupportable burdens which it
necessarily entailed. The sufferings of the masses prompted them to seek
relief by bringing their grievances before Parliament; but the reception
their petitions met with, served only to show the little sympathy which
existed between the national representatives, as then elected, and the
people of England. Petitions were next presented to the Regent himself,
while the popular discontent found expression in large meetings convened
in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, and other industrial centres.
These meetings, it was observed, were convened, attended, and addressed
almost exclusively by the working classes, the middle and upper ranks
taking no share in the proceedings. The speakers pointed out in
impressive and forcible language the various evils which they said had
brought about their altered condition; the waste of public money in
perpetual wars, in unearned pensions, sinecures, and other unjust
expenditure. The high price of provisions provoked riots at Brandon,
Norwich, Newcastle, Ely, Glasgow, Preston, Leicester, Merthyr, Tredegar,
and other places; a large number of the populace assembled in Spafields
in December to receive the Regent's answer to their petition. While
waiting the arrival of "orator" Hunt, one of the most popular of the
agitators of the day, a band of desperadoes appeared on the scene with a
tri-coloured flag, and headed by a man named Watson, who, after
delivering a violent harangue from a waggon, led them into the city. The
rioters pillaged several gunsmiths' shops, but the prompt action of Lord
Mayor Wood, the strong party of constables at his back, who seized
several of the rioters, and the appearance on the scene of the
military, soon induced the rioters to disperse. In January, 1817, John
Cashman, one of the Spafields rioters, was tried for burglariously
entering the shop of Mr. Beckworth, a gunsmith, and hanged opposite the
scene of his depredations.
1817. REGENT OPENS PARLIAMENT.
The Regent opened Parliament on the 28th of January, 1817. In his
address, he said that "the distress consequent upon the termination of a
war of such universal extent and duration, had been felt with greater or
less severity throughout all the nations of Europe, and had been
considerably aggravated by the unfavourable state of the season."
Alluding to the proceedings of the popular agitators, he added: "In
considering our internal situation, you will, I doubt not, feel a just
indignation at the attempts which have been made to take advantage of
the distresses of the country, for the purpose of exciting a spirit of
sedition and violence.... I am determined to omit no precautions for
preserving the public peace, and for counteracting the designs of the
disaffected." Whether this statement was the cause or not, the Regent
had a narrow escape on his return from the House; for, while passing at
the back of the gardens of Carlton House, the glass of his window was
broken, either by a stone or (as was supposed) by two balls from an
air-gun, which appeared to have been aimed at His Royal Highness.
On the 6th of February, Lord Cockrane presented to the House of Commons
the petition of the Spafields meeting, signed by 24,000 persons. It
prayed for annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and reduction in the
public expenditure. He presented at the same time a petition from
Manchester, signed by 30,000 persons, praying for reform in Parliament
and economy in the public expenditure. Sir Francis Burdett also
presented a Leeds petition for the same objects, containing 7,000
signatures. These were of course only legitimate modes of expressing the
wants of the people; but, unhappily, quite independent of the action of
the popular leaders, the country in some parts was so disturbed, so
closely on the brink of insurrection, that ministers found themselves
obliged twice during the course of the year to resort to the almost
unprecedented measure of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, on the first
occasion at the end of February, and on the second in June.
At a meeting held at Manchester in March, for the purpose of petitioning
the Regent against the suspension of the Act, it was proposed and agreed
that another meeting should be held on the following Monday (the 10th of
March), with the professed intention that ten out of every twenty
persons who attended it should proceed to London with a petition to His
Royal Highness. The meeting took place accordingly; many thousands
actually attended in full marching order (_i.e._ provided with a bundle
and a blanket); and a considerable body appear to have made some advance
on their way before their further progress was arrested. Expeditions of
a similar character were simultaneously planned, attempted, and
frustrated in other parts of the country.
GOVERNMENT SPIES.
Meanwhile, there were trials for high treason at Westminster Hall;
trials of rioters at York and Derby; and at the latter town, on the 7th
of November, three miserable men were hung. Among the witnesses at these
trials appear to have been two men named Castle and Oliver: and it came
out that these fellows, with two other Government spies, named Edwards
and Franklin, had been among the chief fomenters by speeches and
writings of the seditions in the Metropolis and northern counties. The
disclosures made by these scoundrels produced of course a great
sensation and numerous satires. One of these, entitled, _More Plots!!!
More Plots!!!_ published by Fores in August, 1817, is "dedicated to the
inventors, Lord S [idmouth] and Lord C [astlereagh]." It is divided into
four compartments. In the first we see four foxes (typifying no doubt
the four informers) watching the movements of a flock of geese. "'Tis
plain," says one of the former, "there is a plot on foot; let's seize
them, Brother Oliver." "I have no doubt of it: I can smell it plainly,"
answers his companion. In the second, a couple of fierce nondescript
beasts are regarding a number of innocent lambs: "These bloodthirsty
wretches," remarks one of the two, "mean to destroy man, woman, and
child, I know it to a certainty; for they carry sedition, privy
conspiracy, and rebellion in their looks." "And I'll swear it, Brother
Castle," says his companion; "let's dash at them." In the third, a cat
watches the movements of some unsuspecting mice: "There's a pretty
collection of rogues gathered together," observes Grimalkin; "if there
is not a plot among them, burn my tail and whiskers." In the last, we
behold a Kite just about to pounce on some chicken: "The world's
over-run with iniquity," says the bird of prey; "and these troublesome
miscreants will not let honest hawks sleep in security." We shall return
to the subject of these Government spies and the troubles of 1817 in the
graphic satires of George Cruikshank.
EDMUND KEAN AND BOOTH.
In 1817, the rivalry between the two national theatres ran so high, that
the Covent Garden management employed agents to scour the provinces in
search of a rival to Edmund Kean at Drury Lane. After a time one was
found in the person of Lucius Junius Booth, who in stature, _role_ of
characters, and (as it was imagined) style of acting, closely resembled,
if he did not equal, the great original. He made his _debut_ at Covent
Garden, in the character of Richard the Third. Whether it was a success
or not seems doubtful; for the manager being out of town, those deputed
to act as deputies did not care to undertake the responsibility of
engaging the new star. In this dilemma, overtures were made to him by
the rival house, which he accepted, and made his appearance as "Iago" to
Kean's "Othello" to a densely-packed audience at Drury Lane. So great
was the likeness between the two actors, that strangers were puzzled to
know which was Kean and which was Booth, until the tragedy reached the
third act, when the genius of Kean made itself felt, and no doubt
remained in the minds of the audience which was master of his art.
Booth, in fact, discovered that he had made a mistake, and the day after
his trial at old Drury, signed articles to return to Covent Garden for
three years. Here he proved a great attraction; he must have been in
truth an actor of no ordinary merit; his rendering of the character of
Lear, in particular, met with universal approbation, and in this tragedy
he was supported by actors of the ability of Charles Kemble and William
Macready, both of whom he threw into the shade. At the end, however, of
his engagement, feeling that he was incapable of meeting Kean on
anything like equal terms, he set sail for America.
The appearance of Edmund Kean and Lucius Junius Booth at Drury Lane is
referred to in a satire entitled, _The Rival Richards_, published by S.
W. Fores in 1817. The sketch (evidently the work of an amateur) shows us
Folly seated on an ass, holding in one hand a pair of scales, in one of
which stands Booth, and in the other Edmund Kean. To the mind of the
satirist there appears to be no difference in the abilities of the two
performers, as the scales exactly balance. On the right, the portico of
Covent Garden is overshadowed by the inelegant but massive proportions
of Drury Lane; the intervening space being occupied by various figures
and details, among which is a "patent clapping machine." An
advertisement board carried by one of the figures clearly shows that the
satire--an elaborate idea badly worked out--has reference to the period
when both actors were engaged at "old Drury."
1818. EVACUATION OF FRANCE.
Undoubtedly the most important event of the year 1818 was the congress
of the allied sovereigns at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the evacuation of
France which followed. By the second treaty of Paris, the stay of the
occupying armies had been fixed at a period of five years; but by an
official note, dated the 4th of November, 1818, the ministers of
Austria, Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia, referring to the
engagements entered into by the French Government with the subscribing
powers to that treaty, stated that such Government had fulfilled all the
clauses of the treaty, and proposed, "with respect to those clauses, the
fulfilment of which was reserved for more remote periods, arrangements
which were satisfactory" to the contracting parties. Under these
circumstances the sovereigns resolved that the military occupation of
France should forthwith be discontinued.
On the 7th of November, the Duke of Wellington, commander-in-chief of
the army of occupation, issued an order of the day, taking leave of the
troops under his command, which concluded in the following terms:--
"It is with regret that the general has seen the moment arrive when the
dissolution of this army was to put an end to his public connections and
his private relations with the commanders and other officers of the
corps of the army. The field marshal deeply feels how agreeable these
relations have been to him. He begs the generals commanding in chief to
receive and make known to the troops under their orders, the assurance
that he shall never cease to take the most lively interest in everything
that may concern them; and that the remembrance of the three years
during which he has had the honour to be at their head, will be always
dear to him."
Wellington appears to have received particular marks of distinction from
the Emperor Alexander; but what may have been the particular tittle
tattle which led up to the caricature we shall next describe, we are now
unable to fathom. That it grew out of the event which we have attempted
to describe will be sufficiently obvious. It is entitled, _A Russian
Dandy at Home; a scene at Aix-la-Chapelle_, and was published by Fores
in December, 1818. In it, the satirist shows us the Duke arrayed in the
regimentals of a Russian general, part of which comprise a pair of
jack-boots considerably too large for him, a fact which amuses the
Emperor and certain English and Cossack officers at his back. The
following doggerel appended to the satire affords an explanation of its
meaning:--
"It is said that the head of the forces allied,
Not having a coat to his back,
A generous monarch the needful supplied;
And when thus equipped, they sat down side by side,
To drink their champagne and their sack.
Now, doubtless this hero of wonderful note,
Had the monarch allowed him to choose,
Would have bartered the honour to sit in his coat,
For the pleasure to stand in his shoes."
QUEEN CHARLOTTE.
A well-drawn caricature, published by Fores in February, 1818, and
entitled, _A Peep at the Pump Room, or the Zomersetshire Folks in a
Maze_, shows us a singularly ugly old woman habited in a wonderful
bonnet, and clothes of antiquated make and fashion, drinking the Bath
waters in the midst of a circle of deeply interested and curious gazers.
This poor old woman, who looks very like an old nurse, is no less a
person than Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Queen of George the
Third, who, in failing health and rapidly drawing towards the close of
her earthly pilgrimage, had been recommended by her physicians to try
the effect of the Bath waters. The excitement which this event
occasioned in the then gay, but now decayed western city, is thus
referred to by Mrs. Piozzi in two of her contemporary letters to Sir
James Fellowes: "The queen has driven us all distracted; such a bustle
Bath never witnessed before. She drinks at the Pump Room, purposes going
to say her prayers at the Abbey Church, and a box is making up for her
at the theatre." And again: "Of the clusters in the Pump Room who
_swarm_ round Queen Charlotte, as if she were actually the queen bee,
courtiers must give you an account." At the back of Her Majesty's chair
stands the portly figure of the Duke of Clarence, who recommends the old
lady to qualify the water (which is evidently very distasteful to her)
with a little brandy. "George and I," he adds, "always recommend
brandy." A fat, well favoured woman in a flower-pot bonnet, with a gin
bottle in her hand, on the other hand recommends the old queen to
qualify the Bath water with a dash of "Old Tom," advice which is
seconded by the old woman next her. Behind this last stands the
physician, watch in hand, watching, and moreover predicting in very
plain terms, the expected action of the medicated water. The folks
behind make their observations on the old lady's appearance. "Well, I
declare," says one, "I see nothing extraordinary to look at." "Why, she
doant look a bit better than oul granny," remarks a country joskin. "Who
said she did, eh, dame?" replies her companion. Poor old Queen Charlotte
was never a beauty, and those who remember her exaggerated likenesses in
the satires of Gillray, will not fail to recognise her in the present
satire. One of her well-known habits is referred to by the snuff-box
which lies at her feet.
[Illustration:
_Published February, 1818, by_ S. W. FORES, _50, Piccadilly_
A PEEP INTO THE PUMP-ROOM, OR THE ZOMERSETSHIRE FOLK IN A MAZE.
_Face p. 57._]
The poor old lady was beyond the help of the Bath waters or of any
earthly assistance. We find Mrs. Piozzi writing a few months later on:
"Nothing kills the queen, however. It is really a great misfortune to be
kept panting for breath so, and screaming with pain by medical skill:
were she a subject, I suppose they would have released her long ago; but
diseases and distresses of the human frame must lead to death at
length," which was the case with the poor old queen, who died nine
months after the date of the satire (in November, 1818).
The announcement of the marriages of four of her children this year,
viz.: of the Princess Elizabeth to Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse
Homburg; of Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, to Victoria, daughter of the
Duke of Saxe-Coburg (and mother of Queen Victoria), on the 29th of May;
of Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, to Augusta, daughter of the
Landgrave of Hesse, on the 1st of May; and of William Henry, Duke of
Clarence (afterwards William the Fourth), to Adelaide, daughter of the
Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, on the 11th of July, gave rise to a coarse
though admirably executed caricature entitled, _The Homburg Waltz, with
Characteristic Sketches of Family Dancing_, in which all these royal
personages, with the Regent at their head, are seen prominently figuring
amongst the dancers.
INVENTION OF THE KALEIDOSCOPE.
A forgotten but ingenious instrument, the kaleidoscope, was invented by
Sir David Brewster in 1818. The leading principles of the toy appear to
have been accidentally discovered in the course of a series of
experiments on the polarization of light by successive reflections
between plates of glass. The invention of this now despised toy made a
tremendous sensation at the time, and the inventor was induced to take
out a patent for its protection; but he had, it appears, divulged the
secret of its construction before he had secured the invention to
himself, and the consequence was that, although "it made a hundred
shopmen rich," it brought the inventor himself but little substantial
benefit. This is explained by the fact that it was so simple in
construction, that even when made without scientific accuracy, it served
to delight as well as to amuse. So largely was it pirated, that it was
calculated that no fewer than two hundred thousand were sold in three
months in London and Paris alone. Judging by a caricature of
Williams's, published by Fores in June, 1818, and its doggerel
explanation, the toys would appear even at this time to have been made
and sold by every street boy. The satire is called, _Caleidoscopes, or
Paying for Peeping_. In it, we see the pertinacious vendors pushing the
sale of their wares upon the passengers in the streets--many of them
women. A bishop resolves to buy one because the coloured glass reminds
him of a painted window in his cathedral, another person has paid dearly
for "peeping," and discovers that while gratifying his curiosity, his
"pocket-book has slipped off with two hundred pounds in it." Williams
was a satirist of the old school, and the allusions made by some of the
vendors render this otherwise interesting satire wantonly coarse and
indelicate. Attached to this rare and curious production is the
following doggerel:--
"'Tis the favourite plaything of school-boy and sage,
Of the baby in arms and the baby of age;
Of the grandam whose sight is at best problematical,
And of the soph who explains it by rule mathematical.
Such indeed is the rage for them, chapel or church in,
You see them about you, and each little urchin
Finding a sixpence, with transport beside his hope,
Runs to the tin-man and makes a caleidoscope!"
1819. THE HOBBY.
Another invention made its appearance in 1819: this was the
_velocipede_, or as it was then called "the hobby," the grandfather of
the bicycle and tricycle of our day. A tall gawky perched on the summit
of a lofty bicycle, with an enormous wheel gyrating between a couple of
spindle shanks capped with enormous crab-shells, is a sufficiently
familiar and ridiculous object in our times; but the appearance
presented by the people of 1819, who adopted the spider looking thing
called a "hobby," was so intensely comical that it gave rise to a
perfect flood of caricatures. The best of these we have personally met
with is one entitled, _The Spirit Moving the Quakers upon Worldly
Vanities_, a skit upon the Society of Friends (published by J. T.
Sidebotham). The scene is laid in front of a "Society of Friends Meeting
House," and numerous "Friends" of both sexes are busily engaged in
exercising their hobbies. In the foreground, a broad-brimmed young
"Friend" gives ardent and amorous chase to a lovely Quakeress, who,
apparently disinclined to encourage his advances, urges her steed to its
utmost speed, and makes frantic endeavours to get out of his way.
DEPRESSION IN TRADE.
The internal condition of the country this year (1819) gave cause for
much anxiety. Pecuniary distress, owing to the depression in trade, was
almost universal. This state of things, as might have been expected, was
taken advantage of by the popular agitators for their own purposes; and
the people, under their encouragement, as in the two previous years,
continued to give audible expression to their dissatisfaction at
meetings, and through the medium of publications more or less of a
seditious character. The miserable outlook gave rise (among others) to a
pair of caricatures, published by Fores on the 9th of January, _John
Bull in Clover_, and (by way of contrast), _John Bull Done Over_. In the
first, fat John is enjoying himself with his pipe and his glass; the
sleek condition of his dog shows that it shares in the comforts of its
master's prosperity. John, in fact, has what our Transatlantic cousins
call "a good time;" scattered over the floor lie invoices of goods
despatched by him to customers in Spain, in Russia, in America. Beneath
a portrait of "Good Queen Bess," John has pinned several of his
favourite ballads: "The Land we live in," "Oh, the Roast Beef of Old
England!" "May we all live the days of our life." In _John Bull Done
Over_, a very different picture is presented to our notice. The whole of
John's fat is gone; he sits, a lean, starving, tattered, shoeless object
in a bottomless chair, the embodiment of human misery. In place of his
invoices lie the _Gazette_, which announces his bankruptcy, and a number
of tradesmen's bills; on the back of his chair is coiled a rope, and on
the table before him a razor lies on a treatise on suicide,--John in
fact is debating by what mode he shall put an end to his existence. An
onion and some water in a broken jug are the only articles of sustenance
he has to depend on. The tax gatherer, who has made a number of
fruitless calls, looks through the broken panes to ascertain if John is
really "at home." On the wall, in place of the picture of "Good Queen
Bess," hangs a portrait of John Bellingham, the assassin of Spencer
Perceval; and in lieu of his once joyous ballads, such doleful ditties
as "Oh, dear, what can the matter be!" "There's nae luck about the
house," and so on. The poor dog, grown like his master a lean and
pitiable object, vainly appeals to him for food.
"England's hope"[21]--the darling of the nation--the amiable and
interesting Princess Charlotte, whose loss is still lamented after the
lapse of more than half a century, died in childbirth on the 6th of
November, 1817; but on the 24th of May, 1819, was born, at Kensington
Palace, another amiable and august princess, whose life has been most
happily spared to us--her present Majesty Queen Victoria. To show that
the influence of the last century caricaturists had not yet left us,
this auspicious event immediately gave rise to a coarse caricature,[22]
published by Fores, and labelled, _A Scene in the New Farce called the
Rivals, or a Visit to the Heir Presumptive_, in which the scurrilous
satirist depicts the supposed mortification and jealousy of other
members of the royal family. Her Majesty's father, the Duke of Kent,
died nine months afterwards, on the 23rd of January, 1820.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] The new Alhambra.
[19] A caricature entitled _Doctors Differ_, according to Mr. Grego
(published in 1785) is due to Rowlandson. It is possible, therefore,
that the present one, although not in Rowlandson's style, may be a
reproduction.
[20] This admirable satire appears to me very like the handiwork of
George Cruikshank; but not being able positively to identify it, I
have given it its place in this chapter.
[21] See the caricatures of George Cruikshank, 1817.
[22] Apparently by Williams.