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.
[Illustration: Henry, Cardinal Duke of York.
(From Original Painting in possession of James Drummond, Esq.,
R.S.A.)]
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.
[Illustration: Bronze Medal, Prince Charles; _reverse_, Louisa, his
Wife.
(From Original in Antiquarian Museum, Edinburgh.)]
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._