THE PRINCE IN LONDON; AND AFTER.—MADEMOISELLE LUCI
(SEPTEMBER 1750–JULY 1751)
The Prince goes to London—Futility of this tour—English Jacobites
described by Æneas Macdonald—No chance but in Tearlach—Credentials to
Madame de Talmond—Notes of visit to London—Doings in London—Gratifying
conversion—Gems and medals—Report by Hanbury Williams—Hume’s
legend—Report by a spy—_Billets_ to Madame de
Talmond—Quarrel—Disappearance—‘The old aunt’—Letters to Mademoiselle
Luci—Charles in Germany—Happy thought of Hanbury Williams—Marshal Keith’s
mistress—Failure of this plan—The English ‘have a clue’—Books for the
Prince—Mademoiselle Luci as a critic—Jealousy of Madame de Talmond—Her
letter to Mademoiselle Luci—The young lady replies—Her bad
health—Charles’s reflections—Frederick ‘a clever man’—A new adventure.
THE Prince went to London in the middle of September 1750; and why did he
run such a terrible risk? Though he had ordered great quantities of arms
in June, no real preparations had been made for a rising. His
Highlanders—Glengarry, Lochgarry, Archy Cameron, Clanranald—did not know
where he was. Scotland was not warned. As for England, we learn the
condition of the Jacobite party there from a letter by Æneas Macdonald,
the banker, to Sir Hector Maclean—Sir Hector whom, in his examination, he
had spoken of as ‘too fond of the bottle.’ {103} Æneas now wrote from
Boulogne, in September 1750. He makes it clear that peace, luxury, and
constitutionalism had eaten the very heart out of the grandsons of the
cavaliers. There was grumbling enough at debt, taxes, a Hanoverian King
who at this very hour was in Hanover. Welsh and Cheshire squires and
London aldermen drank Jacobite toasts in private. ‘But,’ says Æneas,
‘there are not in England three persons of distinction of the same
sentiments as to the method of restoring the Royal family, some being for
one way, some for another.’ They have neither heart nor money for an
armed assertion of their ideas. In 1745, Sir William Watkins Wynne (who
stayed at home in Wales) had not 200_l._ by him in ready money, and money
cannot be raised on lands at such moments. Yet this very man was
believed to have spent 120,000_l._ in contested elections. ‘It is very
probable that six times as much money has been thrown away upon these
elections’—he means in the country generally—‘as would have restored the
King.’ Æneas knew another gentleman who had wasted 40,000_l._ in these
constitutional diversions. ‘The present scheme,’ he goes on, ‘is equally
weak.’ The English Jacobites were to seem to side with Frederick, the
Prince of Wales, in opposition, and force him, when crowned, ‘to call a
free Parliament.’ That Parliament would proclaim a glorious Restoration.
In fact, the English Jacobites were devoured by luxury, pacific habits,
and a desire to save their estates by pursuing ‘constitutional methods.’
These, as we shall see, Charles despised. If a foreign force cannot be
landed (if landed it would scarcely be opposed), then ‘there is no method
so good as an attempt such as _Terloch_ [Tearlach] made: if there be arms
and money: men, I am sure, he will find enough. . . . One thing you may
take for granted, that Terloch’s appearance again would be worth 5,000
men, and that without him every attempt will be vain and fruitless.’
Æneas, in his examination, talked to a different tune, as the poor timid
banker, distrusted and insulted by ferocious chieftains.
‘Terloch’ was only too eager to ‘show himself again’; money and arms he
seems to have procured (d’Argenson says 4,000,000 francs!), but why go
over secretly to London, where he had no fighting partisans? There are
no traces of a serious organised plan, and the Prince probably crossed
the water, partly to see how matters really stood, partly from
restlessness and the weariness of a tedious solitude in hiding, broken
only by daily quarrels and reconciliations with the Princesse de Talmond
and other ladies.
We find a curious draft of his written on the eve of starting.
‘Credentials given ye 1st. Sept, 1750. _to ye P. T._’ (Princesse de
Talmond).
‘Je me flate que S.M.T.C. [Sa Majesté Très Chrétien] voudra bien
avoire tout foi et credi à Madame La P. de T., ma chere Cousine, come
si s’etoit mois-meme; particulierement en l’assurant de nouveau come
quois j’ai ses veritable interest plus a cour que ses Ministres,
etant toujours avec une attachemen veritable et sincere pour sa sacre
persone. C. P. R.’ (Charles, Prince Regent).
Again,
_A Mr. Le Duc de Richelieu_.
‘Je comte sur votre Amitié, Monsieur, je vous prie d’être persuade de
la mienne et de ma reconnaissance.
‘All these are deponed, not to be given till farther orders.’
What use the Princesse de Talmond was to make of these documents, on what
occasion, is not at all obvious. That the Prince actually went to
London, we know from a memorandum in his own hand. ‘My full powers and
commission of Regency renewed, when I went to England in 1750, and
nothing to be said at Rome, for every thing there is known, and my
brother, who has got no confidence of my Father, has always acted, as far
as his power, against my interest.’ {105}
Of Charles’s doings in London, no record survives in the Stuart Papers of
1750. We merely find this jotting:
‘Parted ye 2d. Sep. Arrived to A. [Antwerp] ye 6th. Parted from
thence ye 12th. Sept. E. [England] ye 14th, and at L. [London] ye
16th. Parted from L. ye 22d. and arrived at P. ye 24th. From P.
parted ye 28th. Arrived here ye 30th Sept. If she [Madame de
Talmond, probably] does not come, and ye M. [messenger] agreed on to
send back for ye Letters and Procuration [to] ye house here of P. C.
and her being either a tretor or a hour, to chuse which, [then] not
to send to P. even after her coming unless absolute necessity order,
requiring it then at her dor.’
On the back of the paper is:
‘The letter to Godie [Gaudie?] retarded a post; ye Lady’s being
arrived, or her retard to be little, if she is true stille.’
Then follow some jottings, apparently of the lady’s movements. ‘N.S.
[New style] ye 16th. Sept. Either ill counselled or she has made a
confidence. M. Lorain’s being here [the Duke of Lorraine, ex-King of
Poland, probably, a friend of Madame de Talmond] ye 12th. Sept. To go ye
same day with ye King, speaking to W. [Waters?] ye last day, Madame A.
here this last six weeks.’
These scrawls appear to indicate some communication between Madame de
Talmond, the Duke of Lorraine, and Louis XV. {106}
In London Charles did little but espouse the Anglican religion. Dr.
King, in his ‘Anecdotes,’ tells how the Prince took the refreshment of
tea with him, and how his servant detected a resemblance to the busts
sold in Red Lion Square. He also appeared at a party at Lady Primrose’s,
much to her alarm. {107} He prowled about the Tower with Colonel Brett,
and thought a gate might be damaged by a petard. His friends, including
Beaufort and Westmoreland, held a meeting in Pall Mall, to no purpose.
The tour had no results, except in the harmless region of the fine arts.
A medal was struck, by Charles’s orders, and we have the following
information for collectors of Jacobite trinkets. The English Government,
never dreaming that the Prince was in Pall Mall, was well informed about
cheap treasonable jewellery.
‘Paris: August 31, 1750.
‘The Artist who makes the seals with the head of the Pretender’s
eldest Son, is called le Sieur Malapert, his direction is hereunder,
he sells them at 3 Livres apiece, but by the Dozen he takes less.
‘It is one Tate, who got the engraving made on metal, from which the
Artist takes the impression on his Composition in imitation of fine
Stones of all colours. This Tate was a Jeweller at Edinborough,
where he went into the Rebellion and having made his escape, has
since settled here, but has left his wife and Family at Edinborough.
He is put upon the list of the French King’s Bounty for eight hundred
Livres yearly, the same as is allowed to those that had a Captain’s
Commission in the Pretender’s Service and are fled hither. It is
Sullivan and Ferguson who employ Tate to get the 1,500 Seals done, he
being a man that does still Jeweller’s business and follows it. The
Artist has actually done four dozen of seals, which are disposed of,
having but half a dozen left. He expects daily an order for the said
quantity more—As there are no Letters or Inscription about it, the
Artist may always pretend that it is only a fancy head, though it is
in reality very like the Pretender’s Eldest Son.’ {108}
Oddly enough, we find Waters sealing, with this very intaglio of the
Prince, a letter to Edgar, in 1750. It is a capital likeness.
Wise after the event, Hanbury Williams wrote from Berlin (October 13,
1750) that Charles was in England, ‘in the heart of the kingdom, in the
county of Stafford.’ By October 20, Williams knows that the Prince is in
Suffolk. All this is probably a mere echo of Charles’s actual visit to
London, reverberated from the French Embassy at Berlin, and arriving at
Hanbury Williams, he says, through an Irishman, who knew a lacquey of the
French Ambassador’s. In English official circles no more than this was
known. Troops were concentrated near Stafford after Charles had returned
to Lorraine. Hume told Sir John Pringle a story of how Charles was in
London in 1753, how George II. told the fact to Lord Holdernesse, and how
the King expressed his good-humoured indifference. But Lord Holdernesse
contradicted the tale, as we have already observed. If Hume meant 1750
by 1733 he was certainly wrong. George was then in Hanover. In 1753 I
have no proof that Charles was in London, though Young Glengarry told
James that the Prince was ‘on the coast’ in November 1752. If Charles
did come to London in 1753, and if George knew it, the information came
through Pickle to Henry Pelham, as will appear later. Hume gave the Earl
Marischal as his original authority. The Earl was likely to be better
informed about events of 1752–1753 than about those of September 1750.
After Charles’s departure from London, the English Government received
information from Paris (October 5, 1750) to the following effect:
‘Paris: October 5, 1750.
‘It is supposed that the Pretender’s Son keeps at Montl’hery, six
leagues from Paris, at Mr. Lumisden’s, or at Villeneuve St. Georges,
at a small distance from Town, at Lord Nairn’s; Sometimes at Sens,
with Col. Steward and Mr. Ferguson; when at Paris, at Madme. la
Princesse de Talmont’s, or the Scotch Seminary; nobody travels with
him but Mr. Goring, and a Biscayan recommended to him by _Marshal
Saxe_: the young Pretender is disguised in an Abbé’s dress, with a
black patch upon his eye, and his eyebrows black’d.
‘An Officer of Ogilvie’s Regimt. in this Service listed lately. An
Irish Priest, who belonged to the Parish Church of S. Eustache at
Paris, has left his Living, reckoned worth 80_l._ St. a year, and is
very lately gone to London to be Chaplain to the Sardinian Minister:
he has carried with him a quantity of coloured Glass Seals with the
Pretender’s Son’s Effigy, as also small heads made of silver gilt
about this bigness [example] to be set in rings, as also points for
watch cases, with the same head, and this motto round “Look, Love,
and follow.”’ {110}
On October 30, Walton wrote that James was much troubled by a letter from
Charles, doubtless containing the news of his English failure; perhaps
notifying his desertion of the Catholic faith. On January 15, 1751,
Walton writes that James has confided to the Pope that Charles is at
Boulogne-sur-Mer, which he very possibly was. On January 9 and 22,
Horace Mann reports, on the information of Cardinal Albani, that James
and the Duke of York are ill with grief. ‘Something extraordinary has
happened to the Pretender’s eldest son.’ He had turned Protestant, that
was all. But Cardinal Albani withdraws his statement, and thinks that
nothing unusual has really occurred. In fact, Charles, as we shall see,
had absolutely vanished for three months.
Charles returned to France in September 1750, and renewed his _amantium
irae_ with Madame de Talmond. Among the Stuart Papers of 1750 are a
number of tiny _billets_, easily concealed, and doubtless passed to the
lady furtively. ‘Si vous ne voulez, Reine de Maroc, pas cet faire,
quelle plaisir mourir de chagrin et de desespoire!’
‘Aiez de la Bonté et de confience pour celui qui vous aime et vous adore
passionément.’
To some English person:
‘Ask the Channoine where you can by hocks [buy hooks!] and lines for
fishing, and by a few hocks and foure lines.’ {111}
The Princess writes:
‘Je partirai dimanche comme j’ai promis au Roy de Pologne’
(Stanislas). ‘Je vous embrasse bien tendrement, si vous êtes tel que
vous devez être à mon égard.’ She is leaving for Commercy. On the
reverse the Prince has written, ‘Judi. Je comance a ouvrire mes yeux
a votre egar, Madame, vous ne voulez pas de mois, ce soire, malgre
votre promes, et ma malheureuse situation.’
The quarrels grew more frequent and more embittered. We have marked his
suspicious view of the lady’s movements. On September 26, 1750, she had
not returned, and he wrote to her in the following terms.
_The Prince_.
September 26, 1750.
‘Je pars, Madame, dans L’instant, en Sorte que vous feriez
reflection, et retourniez au plus vite, tout doit vous Engager, si
vous avez de l’amitié pour mois, Car je ne puis pas me dispenser de
vous repeter, Combien chaque jour de votre absence faira du tor a mes
affaier outre Le desire d’avoire une Coinpagnie si agréable dans une
si triste solitude, que ma malheureuse situation m’oblige
indispensablement de tenire. J’ai cessé [?] des Ordres positive a
Mlle. Luci, de ne me pas envoier La Moindre Chose meme une dilligence
come aussi de mon cote je n’en veres rien, jusqu’a ce que vous soiez
arrive.
‘Quant vous partires alors Mdll. Luci vous remettera tout ce quil
aura pour mois, vous rien de votre cote que votre personne.’
On the same paper Charles announces his intention of going instantly to
‘Le Lorain.’ There must have been a great quarrel with Madame de
Talmond, outwearied by the exigencies of a Prince doomed to a _triste
solitude_ after a week of London. On September 30 he announces to Waters
that there will be no news of him till January 15, 1751. For three
months he disappears beyond even his agent’s ken. On October 20 he
writes to Mademoiselle Luci, styling himself ‘Mademoiselle Chevalier,’
and calling Madame de Talmond ‘Madame Le Nord.’ The Princesse de Talmond
has left him, is threatening him, and may ruin him.
‘Le October 20, 1750.
‘A Mll. Luci: Mademoiselle Chevalier est tres affligee de voir le peu
d’egard que Madame Lenord a pour ses Interest. La Miene du 12 auroit
ete La derniere mais cette dame a ecrit une Letre en date du 18 a M.
Le Lorrain qui a choqué cette Demoiselle [himself], Et je puis dire
avec raison quelle agit come Le plus Grand de ses ennemis par son
retard, elle ajoute encor a cela des menaces si on La presse
d’avantage, et si l’on se plain de son indigne procedé. Md. Poulain
seroit deja partit, et partiroit si cette dame lui en donnoit Les
Moiens. Je ne puis trop vous faire connoitre Le Tort que Md. Lenord
fait a cette demoiselle en abandonant sa société et La risque qu’elle
fait courir a Md. de Lille qui par La pouroit faire banqueroute.
‘A Mdll. La Marre.
Chez M. Lecuyer tapisse [Tapissier].
Grande Rue Garonne, Faubourg
St. Germain à Paris.
‘Vous pouvez accuser La reception de cette Lettre par Le premier
Ordinaire a M. Le Vieux [Old Waters].
‘Adieu Mdll.
‘Je vous embrace de tout mon Cour.’
On November 7 Charles writes again to Mademoiselle Luci: the Princesse de
Talmond is here _la vieille tante_: now estranged and perhaps hostile.
Madame de la Bruère is probably the wife of M. de la Bruère, whom
Montesquieu speaks highly of when, in 1749, he was Chargé d’Affaires in
Rome. {113}
‘Le 7 Nov. 1750.
‘Mdlle. Luci,—Je suis fort Etone Mademoiselle qu’une fame de cette
Age qu’a notre Tante soi si deresonable. Elle se done tout La paine
immaginable pour agire contre Les interets de sa niece par son retard
du payment dont vous m’avez deja parlé.
‘Voici une lettre que je vous prie de cachete, et d’y mettre son
adress, et de l’envoier sur Le Champ a Madame de Labruière. Il est
inutile d’hors en avant que vous communiquier aucune Chose de ce qui
regard Mlle. Chevalier [himself], a Md. la Tante [Talmond] jusqu’a ce
que Elle pense otrement, car, il n’est que trop cler ques es procedes
sont separés et oposés à ce qui devroit etre son interet. Je vous
embrace de tout mon Coeur.’
These embraces are from the supposed Mademoiselle Chevalier. There is no
reason to suppose a tender passion between Charles and the girl who was
now his Minister of Affairs, Foreign and Domestic. But Madame de
Talmond, as we shall learn, became jealous of Mademoiselle Luci.
His deeper seclusion continues.
Madame de Talmond, in the following letter, is as before, _la tante_.
The ‘merchandise’ is letters for the Prince, which have reached
Mademoiselle Luci, and which she is to return to Waters, the banker.
‘Le 16 Nov. 1750.
‘A Mdll. Luci: Je vous ai écrit Mademoiselle, Le 7, avec une incluse
pour Md. de La Bruière, je vous prie de m’en accuser la reception à
l’adresse de M. Le Vieux [Old Waters], et de me donner des Nouvelles
de M. de Lisle [unknown]; pour se que regarde Les Marchandises de
modes que vous avez chez vous depuis que j’ai en Le plaisir de vous
voire et que cette Tante [Madame de Talmond] veut avoire l’indignité
d’en differer le paiement, il faut que vous les renvoiez au memes
Marchands de qui vous Les avez reçu et leur dire que vous craignez ne
pas avoir de longtems une occasion favorable pour Les débiter, ainsi
qu’en attendant vous aimez mieux quelles soieut dans leurs mains que
dans Les votres. Je vous embrasse de tout mon Coeur.’
By November 19, Charles is indignant even with Mademoiselle Luci, who has
rather tactlessly shown the letter of November 7 to Madame de Talmond,
_la tante_, _la vieille Femme_. Oh, the unworthy Prince!
Charles’s epistle follows:
19th Nov.
‘Je suis tres surprise, Mademoiselle, de votre Lettre du 15, par
Laquelle vous dites avoire montres a la tante une Lettre touchant les
Affaires de Mdlle. Chevalier, cependant la mienne du 7 dont vous
m’accuses La reception vous marquoit positivement Le contraire, Mr.
De Lisle ne voulant pas qu’on parlet a cette vieille Femme jesqu’a ce
qu’elle changeat de sentiment, et qu’elle paix la somme si necessaire
à son Commerce. Ne vous serriez vous pas trompée de l’adresse de
l’incluse pour la jeune Marchande de Mdlle. La bruière—Vous devez
peut ete La connoitre; si cela est, je vous prie de me le Marquer et
d’y remedier au plutot. Enfin Mademoiselle vous me faites tomber des
nues et les pauvrétés que vous me marquez sont a mépriser. Elles ne
peuvent venir que de cette tante, ce sont des couleurs qui ne peuvent
jaimais prendre.
‘Adieu Mdlle., n’attendez plus de mes nouvelles jusqu’a ce que le
paiement soit fait. Soiez Toujours assurée de ma sincere amitié.’
Charles’s whole career, alas! after 1748, was a set of quarrels with his
most faithful adherents. This break with his old mistress, Madame de
Talmond, is only one of a fatal series. With Mademoiselle Luci he never
broke: we shall see the reason for this constancy. His correspondence
now includes that of ‘John Dixon,’ of London, a false name for an
adherent who has much to say about ‘Mr. Best’ and ‘Mr. Sadler.’ The
Prince was apparently at or near Worms; his letters went by Mayence. On
December 30 he sends for ‘L’Esprit des Lois’ and ‘Les Amours de Mlle.
Fanfiche,’ and other books of diversified character. On Decemuber 31,
his birthday, he wrote to Waters, ‘the indisposition of those I employ
has occasioned this long silence.’ Mr. Dormer was his chief medium of
intelligence with England. ‘Commerce with Germany’ is mentioned;
efforts, probably, to interest Frederick the Great. On January 27, 1751,
Mademoiselle Luci is informed that _la tante_ has paid (probably returned
his letters), but with an ill grace. Cluny sends an account of the Loch
Arkaig money (only 12,981_l._ is left) and of the loyal clans.
Glengarry’s contingent is estimated at 3,000 men. In England, ‘Paxton’
(Sir W. W. Wynne) is dead. On February 28, 1751, Charles is somewhat
reconciled to his old mistress. ‘Je me flatte qu’en cette Nouvelle Année
vous vous corrigerez, en attendant je suis come je serois toujours, avec
toutte la tendresse et amitié possible, C. P.’
It is, of course, just possible that, from October 1750 to February 1751,
Charles was in Germany, trying to form relations with Frederick the
Great. Goring, under the name of ‘Stouf,’ was certainly working in
Germany. Sir Charles Hanbury Williams at Berlin wrote on February 6,
1751, to the Duke of Newcastle:
‘Hitherto my labours have been in vain. But I think I have at
present hit upon a method which may bring the whole to light. And I
will here take the liberty humbly to lay my thoughts and proposals
before Your Grace. Feldt Marshal Keith has long had a mistress who
is a Livonian, and who has always had an incredible ascendant over
the Feldt Marshal, for it was certainly upon her account that his
brother, the late Lord Marshal, quitted his house, and that they now
live separately. About a week ago (during Feldt Marshal Keith’s
present illness) the King of Prussia ordered that this woman should
be immediately sent out of his dominions. Upon which she quitted
Berlin, and is certainly gone directly to Riga, which is the place of
her birth. Now, as I am well persuaded that she was in all the Feldt
Marshal’s secrets, I would humbly submit it to Your Grace, whether it
might _not be proper for His Majesty_ to order his Ministers at the
Court of Petersburgh to make instance to the Empress of Russia, that
this woman might be obliged to come to Petersburgh, where, _if proper
measures were taken with her_, she may give much light into this, and
perhaps into other affairs. The reason why I would have her brought
to Petersburgh is, that if she is examined at Riga, that examination
would probably be committed to the care of Feldt Marshal Lasci, who
commands in Chief, and constantly resides there, and I am afraid,
would not take quite so much pains to examine into the bottom of an
affair of this nature, as I could wish . . .
‘C. HANBURY WILLIAMS.
It is not hard to interpret the words ‘proper measures’ as understood in
the land of the knout. The mistress of Field Marshal Keith could not be
got at; she had gone to Sweden, and this chivalrous proposal failed. The
woman was not tortured in Russia to discover a Prince who was in or near
Paris. {118}
At the very moment when Williams, from Berlin, was making his manly
suggestion, Lord Albemarle, from Paris (February 10, 1751), was reporting
to his Government that Charles had been in Berlin, and had been received
by Frederick ‘with great civility.’ The King, however, did not accede to
Charles’s demand for his sister’s hand. This report is probably
incorrect, for Charles’s notes to Mademoiselle Luci at this time indicate
no great absence from the French capital.
On February 17, 1751, the English Government, like the police, ‘fancied
they had a clue.’ The Duke of Bedford wrote to Lord Albemarle, ‘His
Majesty would have your Excellency inform M. Puysieux that you have it
now in your power to have the Young Pretender’s motions watched, in such
a manner as to be able to point out to him where he may be met with; and
that his Majesty doth therefore insist that, in conformity to the
treaties now subsisting between the two nations he be immediately obliged
to leave France. . . . He must be sent by sea, either into the
Ecclesiastical States, or to such other country at a distance from
France, as may render it impossible for him to return with the same
facility he did before.’ {119}
These hopes of Charles’s arrest were disappointed.
On March 4, young Waters heard of the Prince at the opera ball in Paris.
He sent the Prince a watch from the Abbess of English nuns at Pontoise.
Charles was always leaving his watches under his pillow. He certainly
was not far from Paris. He scolded Madame de Talmond for returning
thither (March 4), and sent to Mademoiselle Luci a commission for books,
such as ‘Attilie tragedie’ (‘Athalie’) and ‘Histoire de Miss Clarisse,
Lettres Anglaises ‘(Richardson’s ‘Clarissa’), and ‘La Chimie de Nicola’
(_sic_). Mademoiselle Luci, writing on March 5, tells how the Philosophe
(Montesquieu,), their friend, has heard a Monsieur Le Fort boast of
knowing the Prince’s hiding-place. ‘The Philosophe turned the
conversation.’ The Prince answers that Le Fort is _très galant homme_,
but a friend of _la tante_ (Madame de Talmond), who must have been
blabbing. He was in or near Paris, for he corresponded constantly with
Mademoiselle Luci. The young lady assures him that some new
philosophical books which he had ordered are worthless trash.
‘L’Histoire des Passions’ and ‘Le Spectacle de l’Homme’ are amateur
rubbish; ‘worse was never printed.’
The Prince now indulged in a new cypher. Walsh (his financial friend) is
Legrand, Kennedy is Newton (as before), Dormer at Antwerp (his
correspondent with England) is Mr. Blunt, ‘Gorge in England’ (Gorge!) is
Mr. White, and so on. Owing to the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales,
there was a good deal of correspondence with ‘Dixon’ and ‘Miss
Fines’—certainly Lady Primrose—while Dixon may be James Dawkins, or Dr.
King, of St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford. On May 16, Charles gave Goring
instructions as to ‘attempting the Court of Prussia, or any other except
France, after their unworthy proceedings.’ Goring did not set out till
June 21, 1751. From Berlin the poor man was to go to Sweden. In April,
Madame de Talmond was kind to Charles ‘si malheureux et par votre
position et par votre caractère.’ Mademoiselle Luci was extremely ill in
May and June, indeed till October; this led to a curious correspondence
in October between her and _la vieille tante_. Madame de Talmond was
jealous of Mademoiselle Luci, a girl whom one cannot help liking. Though
out of the due chronological course, the letters of these ladies may be
cited here.
_From Madame de Beauregard_ (_Madame de Talmond_) _to Mademoiselle
Luci_.
‘October 19, 1751.
‘The obstinacy of your taste for the country, Mademoiselle, in the
most abominable weather, is only equalled by the persistence of your
severity towards me. I have written to you from Paris, I have
written from Versailles, with equal success—not a word of answer!
Whether you want to imitate, or to pay court to our amie [the Prince]
I know not, but would gladly know, that I may yield everything with a
good grace, let it cost what it will. As a rule it would cost me
much, nay, all, to sacrifice your friendship. But I have nothing to
contest with old friends, who are more lovable than myself. On my
side I have only the knowledge and the feeling of your worth, which
require but discernment and justice. From such kinds of
accomplishments as these, you are dispensed. So serious a letter
might be tedious without being long, but it is saddened also by the
weary weight of my own spirits. Will you kindly give me news of your
health and of your return to town? I am sorry that Paris does not
interest me; I am going to Fontainebleau at the end of the week.’
Mademoiselle Luci replies with dignity.
‘October 22, 1751.
‘Madame,—A fever, and many other troubles, have prevented me from
answering the three letters with which you have honoured me. Permit
me to mingle a few complaints with my thanks! Were I capable of the
sentiments which you attribute to me, I could not deserve your
flattering esteem. Its expressions I should be compelled to regard
merely as an effort of extreme politeness on your side. Assuredly,
Madame, I am strongly attached to Madame your friend [the Prince];
for her I would suffer and do everything short of stooping to an act
of baseness. If, Madame, you have not found in me virtues which will
assure you of this, at least trust my faults! My character is not
supple. The one thing which makes my frankness endurable is, that it
renders me incapable of conduct for which I should have to blush.
Believe, then, Madame, that I can preserve my friendship for your
friend, without falling, as you suspect, into the baseness of paying
court to her [the Prince], in spite of the respect which I owe to
_you_.’
The letters of the ladies (in French) are copied by the Prince’s hand,
nor has he improved the orthography. I therefore translate these
epistles.
On July 10, 1751, after a tremendous quarrel with Madame de Talmond,
Charles wrote out his political reflections. France must apologise to
him before he can enter into any measures with her Court. ‘I have
nothing at heart but the interest of my country, and I am always ready to
sacrifice everything for it, Life and rest, but the least reflection as
to ye point of honour I can never pass over. There is nobody whatsoever
I respect more as ye K. of Prussia; not as a K. but as I believe him to
be a clever man. Has he intention to serve me? Proofs must be given,
and ye only one convincive is his agreeing to a Marriage with his sister,
and acknowledging me at Berlin for what I am.’ He adds that he will not
be a tool, ‘like my ansisters.’
Such were Charles’s lonely musings, such the hopeless dreams of an exile.
He had now entered on his attempt to secure Prussian aid, and on a fresh
chapter of extraordinary political and personal intrigues.