1818. EVACUATION OF FRANCE.

Undoubtedly the most important event of the year 1818 was the congress of the allied sovereigns at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the evacuation of France which followed. By the second treaty of Paris, the stay of the occupying armies had been fixed at a period of five years; but by an official note, dated the 4th of November, 1818, the ministers of Austria, Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia, referring to the engagements entered into by the French Government with the subscribing powers to that treaty, stated that such Government had fulfilled all the clauses of the treaty, and proposed, "with respect to those clauses, the fulfilment of which was reserved for more remote periods, arrangements which were satisfactory" to the contracting parties. Under these circ.u.mstances the sovereigns resolved that the military occupation of France should forthwith be discontinued.

On the 7th of November, the Duke of Wellington, commander-in-chief of the army of occupation, issued an order of the day, taking leave of the troops under his command, which concluded in the following terms:--

"It is with regret that the general has seen the moment arrive when the dissolution of this army was to put an end to his public connections and his private relations with the commanders and other officers of the corps of the army. The field marshal deeply feels how agreeable these relations have been to him. He begs the generals commanding in chief to receive and make known to the troops under their orders, the a.s.surance that he shall never cease to take the most lively interest in everything that may concern them; and that the remembrance of the three years during which he has had the honour to be at their head, will be always dear to him."

Wellington appears to have received particular marks of distinction from the Emperor Alexander; but what may have been the particular t.i.ttle tattle which led up to the caricature we shall next describe, we are now unable to fathom. That it grew out of the event which we have attempted to describe will be sufficiently obvious. It is ent.i.tled, _A Russian Dandy at Home; a scene at Aix-la-Chapelle_, and was published by Fores in December, 1818. In it, the satirist shows us the Duke arrayed in the regimentals of a Russian general, part of which comprise a pair of jack-boots considerably too large for him, a fact which amuses the Emperor and certain English and Cossack officers at his back. The following doggerel appended to the satire affords an explanation of its meaning:--

"It is said that the head of the forces allied, Not having a coat to his back, A generous monarch the needful supplied; And when thus equipped, they sat down side by side, To drink their champagne and their sack.

Now, doubtless this hero of wonderful note, Had the monarch allowed him to choose, Would have bartered the honour to sit in his coat, For the pleasure to stand in his shoes."

QUEEN CHARLOTTE.

A well-drawn caricature, published by Fores in February, 1818, and ent.i.tled, _A Peep at the Pump Room, or the Zomersetshire Folks in a Maze_, shows us a singularly ugly old woman habited in a wonderful bonnet, and clothes of antiquated make and fashion, drinking the Bath waters in the midst of a circle of deeply interested and curious gazers.

This poor old woman, who looks very like an old nurse, is no less a person than Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Queen of George the Third, who, in failing health and rapidly drawing towards the close of her earthly pilgrimage, had been recommended by her physicians to try the effect of the Bath waters. The excitement which this event occasioned in the then gay, but now decayed western city, is thus referred to by Mrs. Piozzi in two of her contemporary letters to Sir James Fellowes: "The queen has driven us all distracted; such a bustle Bath never witnessed before. She drinks at the Pump Room, purposes going to say her prayers at the Abbey Church, and a box is making up for her at the theatre." And again: "Of the cl.u.s.ters in the Pump Room who _swarm_ round Queen Charlotte, as if she were actually the queen bee, courtiers must give you an account." At the back of Her Majesty's chair stands the portly figure of the Duke of Clarence, who recommends the old lady to qualify the water (which is evidently very distasteful to her) with a little brandy. "George and I," he adds, "always recommend brandy." A fat, well favoured woman in a flower-pot bonnet, with a gin bottle in her hand, on the other hand recommends the old queen to qualify the Bath water with a dash of "Old Tom," advice which is seconded by the old woman next her. Behind this last stands the physician, watch in hand, watching, and moreover predicting in very plain terms, the expected action of the medicated water. The folks behind make their observations on the old lady's appearance. "Well, I declare," says one, "I see nothing extraordinary to look at." "Why, she doant look a bit better than oul granny," remarks a country joskin. "Who said she did, eh, dame?" replies her companion. Poor old Queen Charlotte was never a beauty, and those who remember her exaggerated likenesses in the satires of Gillray, will not fail to recognise her in the present satire. One of her well-known habits is referred to by the snuff-box which lies at her feet.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Published February, 1818, by_ S. W. FORES, _50, Piccadilly_

A PEEP INTO THE PUMP-ROOM, OR THE ZOMERSETSHIRE FOLK IN A MAZE.

_Face p. 57._]

The poor old lady was beyond the help of the Bath waters or of any earthly a.s.sistance. We find Mrs. Piozzi writing a few months later on: "Nothing kills the queen, however. It is really a great misfortune to be kept panting for breath so, and screaming with pain by medical skill: were she a subject, I suppose they would have released her long ago; but diseases and distresses of the human frame must lead to death at length," which was the case with the poor old queen, who died nine months after the date of the satire (in November, 1818).

The announcement of the marriages of four of her children this year, viz.: of the Princess Elizabeth to Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse Homburg; of Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, to Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg (and mother of Queen Victoria), on the 29th of May; of Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, to Augusta, daughter of the Landgrave of Hesse, on the 1st of May; and of William Henry, Duke of Clarence (afterwards William the Fourth), to Adelaide, daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, on the 11th of July, gave rise to a coa.r.s.e though admirably executed caricature ent.i.tled, _The Homburg Waltz, with Characteristic Sketches of Family Dancing_, in which all these royal personages, with the Regent at their head, are seen prominently figuring amongst the dancers.

INVENTION OF THE KALEIDOSCOPE.

A forgotten but ingenious instrument, the kaleidoscope, was invented by Sir David Brewster in 1818. The leading principles of the toy appear to have been accidentally discovered in the course of a series of experiments on the polarization of light by successive reflections between plates of gla.s.s. The invention of this now despised toy made a tremendous sensation at the time, and the inventor was induced to take out a patent for its protection; but he had, it appears, divulged the secret of its construction before he had secured the invention to himself, and the consequence was that, although "it made a hundred shopmen rich," it brought the inventor himself but little substantial benefit. This is explained by the fact that it was so simple in construction, that even when made without scientific accuracy, it served to delight as well as to amuse. So largely was it pirated, that it was calculated that no fewer than two hundred thousand were sold in three months in London and Paris alone. Judging by a caricature of Williams's, published by Fores in June, 1818, and its doggerel explanation, the toys would appear even at this time to have been made and sold by every street boy. The satire is called, _Caleidoscopes, or Paying for Peeping_. In it, we see the pertinacious vendors pushing the sale of their wares upon the pa.s.sengers in the streets--many of them women. A bishop resolves to buy one because the coloured gla.s.s reminds him of a painted window in his cathedral, another person has paid dearly for "peeping," and discovers that while gratifying his curiosity, his "pocket-book has slipped off with two hundred pounds in it." Williams was a satirist of the old school, and the allusions made by some of the vendors render this otherwise interesting satire wantonly coa.r.s.e and indelicate. Attached to this rare and curious production is the following doggerel:--

"'Tis the favourite plaything of school-boy and sage, Of the baby in arms and the baby of age; Of the grandam whose sight is at best problematical, And of the soph who explains it by rule mathematical.

Such indeed is the rage for them, chapel or church in, You see them about you, and each little urchin Finding a sixpence, with transport beside his hope, Runs to the tin-man and makes a caleidoscope!"

1819. THE HOBBY.

Another invention made its appearance in 1819: this was the _velocipede_, or as it was then called "the hobby," the grandfather of the bicycle and tricycle of our day. A tall gawky perched on the summit of a lofty bicycle, with an enormous wheel gyrating between a couple of spindle shanks capped with enormous crab-sh.e.l.ls, is a sufficiently familiar and ridiculous object in our times; but the appearance presented by the people of 1819, who adopted the spider looking thing called a "hobby," was so intensely comical that it gave rise to a perfect flood of caricatures. The best of these we have personally met with is one ent.i.tled, _The Spirit Moving the Quakers upon Worldly Vanities_, a skit upon the Society of Friends (published by J. T.

Sidebotham). The scene is laid in front of a "Society of Friends Meeting House," and numerous "Friends" of both s.e.xes are busily engaged in exercising their hobbies. In the foreground, a broad-brimmed young "Friend" gives ardent and amorous chase to a lovely Quakeress, who, apparently disinclined to encourage his advances, urges her steed to its utmost speed, and makes frantic endeavours to get out of his way.

DEPRESSION IN TRADE.

The internal condition of the country this year (1819) gave cause for much anxiety. Pecuniary distress, owing to the depression in trade, was almost universal. This state of things, as might have been expected, was taken advantage of by the popular agitators for their own purposes; and the people, under their encouragement, as in the two previous years, continued to give audible expression to their dissatisfaction at meetings, and through the medium of publications more or less of a seditious character. The miserable outlook gave rise (among others) to a pair of caricatures, published by Fores on the 9th of January, _John Bull in Clover_, and (by way of contrast), _John Bull Done Over_. In the first, fat John is enjoying himself with his pipe and his gla.s.s; the sleek condition of his dog shows that it shares in the comforts of its master's prosperity. John, in fact, has what our Transatlantic cousins call "a good time;" scattered over the floor lie invoices of goods despatched by him to customers in Spain, in Russia, in America. Beneath a portrait of "Good Queen Bess," John has pinned several of his favourite ballads: "The Land we live in," "Oh, the Roast Beef of Old England!" "May we all live the days of our life." In _John Bull Done Over_, a very different picture is presented to our notice. The whole of John's fat is gone; he sits, a lean, starving, tattered, shoeless object in a bottomless chair, the embodiment of human misery. In place of his invoices lie the _Gazette_, which announces his bankruptcy, and a number of tradesmen's bills; on the back of his chair is coiled a rope, and on the table before him a razor lies on a treatise on suicide,--John in fact is debating by what mode he shall put an end to his existence. An onion and some water in a broken jug are the only articles of sustenance he has to depend on. The tax gatherer, who has made a number of fruitless calls, looks through the broken panes to ascertain if John is really "at home." On the wall, in place of the picture of "Good Queen Bess," hangs a portrait of John Bellingham, the a.s.sa.s.sin of Spencer Perceval; and in lieu of his once joyous ballads, such doleful ditties as "Oh, dear, what can the matter be!" "There's nae luck about the house," and so on. The poor dog, grown like his master a lean and pitiable object, vainly appeals to him for food.

"England's hope"[21]--the darling of the nation--the amiable and interesting Princess Charlotte, whose loss is still lamented after the lapse of more than half a century, died in childbirth on the 6th of November, 1817; but on the 24th of May, 1819, was born, at Kensington Palace, another amiable and august princess, whose life has been most happily spared to us--her present Majesty Queen Victoria. To show that the influence of the last century caricaturists had not yet left us, this auspicious event immediately gave rise to a coa.r.s.e caricature,[22]

published by Fores, and labelled, _A Scene in the New Farce called the Rivals, or a Visit to the Heir Presumptive_, in which the scurrilous satirist depicts the supposed mortification and jealousy of other members of the royal family. Her Majesty's father, the Duke of Kent, died nine months afterwards, on the 23rd of January, 1820.

FOOTNOTES:

[18] The new Alhambra.

[19] A caricature ent.i.tled _Doctors Differ_, according to Mr. Grego (published in 1785) is due to Rowlandson. It is possible, therefore, that the present one, although not in Rowlandson's style, may be a reproduction.

[20] This admirable satire appears to me very like the handiwork of George Cruikshank; but not being able positively to identify it, I have given it its place in this chapter.

[21] See the caricatures of George Cruikshank, 1817.

[22] Apparently by Williams.

CHAPTER IV.

_MISCELLANEOUS CARICATURES AND SUBJECTS OF CARICATURE, 1820-1830._

CAROLINE OF BRUNSWICK.

As in 1809 a revengeful and unscrupulous woman had succeeded in exposing the reputation of a member of the Royal family to public opprobrium, so, in like manner, in 1820, a woman, and no less a person in this instance than a t.i.tular queen of England, was the means of dragging the crown itself through the mire of a disreputable scandal. That Caroline of Brunswick was an uncongenial and unfitting consort; that she was an utterly unfit and improper person to occupy the exalted position of Queen of England, there can be no manner of doubt. But to the question whether it was wise, politic, or dignified to subject her conduct (however morally criminal) to the reproach of a public investigation, there can be but one answer.

The marriage of Caroline, daughter of Charles, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenb.u.t.tel, with George, Prince of Wales, was solemnized on the 8th of April, 1795. Exactly one year afterwards, and three months after the birth of their child, the Princess Charlotte, the pair separated. The separation was effected at the instance of the prince, and the reasons for his wishing to live apart from her are a.s.signed in a letter which he sent her Royal Highness through Lord Cholmondeley: "Our _inclinations_," he told her, "are not in our own power; nor should either be answerable to the other because nature has not made us suitable to each other. Tranquil and comfortable society is, however, in our power; let our intercourse therefore be restricted to _that_."

Sixty years have elapsed since this miserable woman died, and we who are no longer bia.s.sed by the political leanings which more or less influenced those who regarded her with favour or prejudice, are enabled to consider the circ.u.mstances from a fair and dispa.s.sionate point of view. In order that the reader may form his own conclusions of her character and disposition, we prefer to quote authorities whose political sympathies were distinctly favourable to her cause. Writing of his grandmother, Lady de Clifford (governess of the Princess Charlotte), Lord Albermarle tells us: "She [Lady de Clifford] used often to recount to me the events of her court life. The behaviour of the Princess of Wales (this was before she left England) naturally came under review. I fear that the judgment she formed of the conduct of this much sinned against and sinning lady coincides but too closely with the verdict that public opinion has since pa.s.sed upon her. To Lady de Clifford she was the source of constant anxiety and annoyance. Often, when in obedience to the king's [George III.] commands, my grandmother took her young charge to the Charlton Villa, the Princess of Wales would behave with a _levity of manner and language that the presence of her child and her child's governess were insufficient to restrain_. On more than one occasion, Lady de Clifford was obliged to threaten her with making such a representation to the king as would tend to deprive her altogether of the Princess Charlotte's society. These remonstrances were always taken in good part, and produced promises of amendment."[23] The Hon. Amelia Murray tells us in her "Recollections from 1803 to 1837": "There was about this period an extravagant _furore_ in the cause of the Princess of Wales. She was considered an ill-treated woman, and that was enough to arouse popular feeling. My brother was among the young men who helped to give her an ovation at the opera. A few days afterwards he went to breakfast at a place near Woolwich. There he saw the princess, in a gorgeous dress, which was looped up to show her petticoat covered with stars, with silver wings on her shoulders, sitting under a tree, _with a pot of porter on her knee_; and as a finale to the gaiety, she had the doors opened of every room in the house, and selecting a partner, she galloped through them, desiring all the guests to follow her example! It may be guessed whether the gentlemen were anxious to clap her at the opera again." Now this was the personage whom certain cla.s.ses of the community persisted in regarding, sixty years ago, as a royal martyr.

Small as is the respect or esteem which we owe to the memory of George the Fourth, we may almost sympathise with him when he calls such a consort "uncongenial."

A person so little fitted for the high position which she occupied was certain to give trouble; and as far back as 1806, her indiscreet conduct had induced the king [George III.] to grant a commission to Lords Spencer, Grenville, Erskine, and Ellenborough, to examine into the truth of certain allegations which had been made against her; and, although their report expressed the most unqualified opinion that the graver charges were utterly dest.i.tute of foundation, such report, nevertheless, concluded with some strictures made by the commissioners "on the levity of manners displayed by the princess on certain occasions."[24] In consequence of this official report, the intercourse between the Princess of Wales and her daughter, the Princess Charlotte, was subjected to regulation and restraint; they were allowed at first a single weekly interview, which, for some doubtless sufficient reason, was afterwards reduced to a fortnightly meeting.[25]

While pitying the mother, we seem scarcely justified in a.s.suming, with our present knowledge of her obstinate nature and disposition, that these restrictions were imposed without some just and sufficient reason.

It would seem to have come to the knowledge of the Princess Caroline in 1813, that the interdiction was intended "to be still more rigidly enforced,"[26] for on the 14th of January of that year we find that she wrote a letter to the Prince Regent, in which she complained that the separation of mother and daughter was equally injurious to her own character and to the education of her child. Adverting to the restricted intercourse between them, she observed that in the eyes of the world, "this separation of a daughter from her mother would only admit ... of a construction fatal to the mother's reputation. Your Royal Highness," she continued, "will pardon me for adding that there is no less inconsistency than injustice in this treatment. He who dares advise your Highness to overlook the evidence of my innocence, and disregard the sentence of complete acquittal which it [_i.e._ the inquiry of 1806]

produced--or is wicked and false enough still to whisper suspicions in your ear, betrays his duty to you, sir, to your daughter, and to your people, if he counsels you to permit a day to pa.s.s _without a further investigation of my conduct_.... Let me implore you to reflect on the situation in which I am placed, without the shadow of a charge against me, without even an accuser after an inquiry that led to my ample vindication, yet treated as if I were still more culpable _than the perjuries of my suborned traducers represented me_, and held up to the world as a mother who may not enjoy the society of her only child."

No possible objection can be taken to this letter; indeed, by whomsoever it was penned, taken altogether it was an admirable composition. If, however, we are to credit the statement of Mr. Whitbread, made in the House on the 5th of March, 1813, it was thrice returned to the writer unopened. But the princess, as we shall find, was not a person to be intimidated by any amount of rebuffs. "At length that letter [we quote Mr. Whitbread] was read to him [the Prince Regent], and the cold answer returned was, that ministers had received no commands on the subject."[27] The letter found its way into the public prints, and then, and not till then, if we are to believe Mr. Whitbread, his Royal Highness directed that the whole of the doc.u.ments, together with her Royal Highness's communications to himself, should be referred to certain members of the Privy Council, who were to report to him their opinion, "whether under all the circ.u.mstances ... it was fit and proper that the intercourse between the Princess of Wales and her daughter ...

should continue to be, subject to regulations and restrictions."[28]

In their report, which was presented on the 19th of February, the commissioners stated that "they had taken into their most serious consideration, together with the other papers referred to by His Royal Highness, all the doc.u.ments relative to the inquiry inst.i.tuted in 1806 ...

into the truth of certain representations respecting ... the Princess of Wales; and, that after full examination of all the doc.u.ments before them, they were of opinion, that under all the circ.u.mstances of the case, it was highly fit and proper, with a view to the welfare of ... the Princess Charlotte ... and the most important interests of the State, that the intercourse between ... the Princess of Wales and the ... Princess Charlotte should continue to be subject to regulation and restraint."

It was only natural, of course, that Caroline should rebel; and she accordingly wrote on the 1st of March a letter to the Speaker, protesting against the mode in which this second inquiry had been conducted. Motions on her behalf were afterwards brought forward successively in the House by Mr. c.o.c.krane Johnson and Mr. Whitbread, both of which, however, fell to the ground. The remarks made by Mr.

Whitbread provoked a speech in the House of Lords from Lord Ellenborough (who had been a member of both commissions), which is singularly ill.u.s.trative of the habits and manners of the time. After an introduction of great solemnity, his lordship said, "that, in the case alluded to, the persons intrusted with the commission [of 1806] were charged with having fabricated an unauthorised doc.u.ment, purporting to relate what was not given in evidence, and to suppress what was given.

This accusation," said his lordship, "is as false as h---- in every particular." He then proceeded to give an account of the mode in which everything had been taken down from the mouth of the witness, and afterwards read over to and subscribed by her.[29] He concluded his peculiarly energetic speech by again denying, in the most positive terms, the truth of the imputation which had been cast upon the commissioners.

The inquiry of 1813 set the pencils of the caricaturists in motion, and among the satires it occasioned, I find a series of eight pictures on one sheet, representing the witnesses, the commissioners, Mr. Whitbread, and other persons connected with that and the previous investigation of 1806. It is called _A Key to the Investigation, or Iago Distanced by Odds_; and the most amusing of the series is the seventh, which represents the furious Lord Ellenborough, attired in his official robes of Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The following doggerel clearly identifies it with the speech from which we have already quoted:--