individual, would subject him to the extreme penalty of the law. Well, indeed, might every exertion be made, which money or influence could command, to prevent these circumstances from being known by the public. The consequences resulting to the Princes from their publicity might have been dreadful. The French Revolution had reduced kingships and princeships far below par; the question of an hereditary right to govern was mooted at the foot of every throne in Europe; wherever the chain of despotism clanked, or the fetters of superstition enthralled the human mind-there flashed forth the ethereal fire of reason-thrones tottered, and monarchies trembled the sceptre was no longer considered as the symbol of government, and allegiance was laughed at as a chimera engendered in the brain of tyrants and of despots.

At a period like this, princes were called upon, if they regarded the perpetuity of their dynasties, to be rigidly correct, not only in their public but their private conduct-neither the feelings nor the prejudices of the people were to be trifled with; if obedience and allegiance were exacted on the one hand, it was expected on the other that the rights of the people should not be invaded, and that princes should sacrifice their own personal interests for the general welfare of their country.

If these sentiments be founded in truth, by what epithets can we stigmatize the conduct which was pursued by the Prince of Wales in the case of De Beaume's bond? Not the annals of Russia, in the worst times of its history, when a frown cast upon a favourite prostitute was followed by the knout or banishment to Kamtchatka-not the annals of the Inquisition in the plenitude of its persecuting frenzy, can exhibit a deeper tragedy than was enacted with the unfortunate creditors of the British Princes. The assertion, that either of the illustrious brothers was a party to the sanguinary deed -or that they in the remotest degree connived at, or sanctioned the act, must be accompanied with proofs strong as of holy writ, before we can bring ourselves to pronounce their inculpation; nevertheless, it is much to be deplored, that where

such a damning instance of guilt appears, the whole weight of the iniquity should not have been fixed upon the proper delinquents, and the stigma thereby removed which attaches to the character of the Prince of Wales and the agents whom. he employed.

To return. Mr. Perregaux was fully informed, by his friendly and intimate correspondent, of every circumstance connected with the bond, from the first introduction of De Beaume to him; and was particularly requested to pay attention to the business, and to answer any questions put to him concerning it, as by so doing he would oblige the Prince of Wales very much, who in return would very readily acknowledge the services of Mr. Perregaux, by any mode in the power of his Royal Highness. He was perfectly acquainted with the remittance of diamonds made by De Beaume to the Prince, with the dissatisfaction expressed by the Prince of Wales at De Beaume's conduct, with the cancelling of the bond, and with the determination taken by the Prince not to pay either the principal or interest.

Previously to De Beaume's trial, an English gentleman was at Paris, who discharged several considerable employments and who, since that period, has become Right Honourable, having distinguished himself by the possession of great abilities*. In Paris he was a member of the Jacobin Club, and some of his speeches in that assembly were communicated through the press to the British public. At the time alluded to, he had just begun to emerge from obscurity at Paris. His whole history was known to Mr. Perregaux, who at that time had been applied to, on the part of the Princes, to get rid of the business entirely. The bond itself had been cancelled in London, and the next step was to get released from De Beaume

* We purposely decline mentioning the name of this Right Honourable Gentleman consulted by Perregaux, as the disclosure could not strengthen the evidence of the fact, which unfortunately is too abundantly strong. The time is not yet so remote as to have swept away either the recorded evidence or the living witnesses of this transaction, or any part of it. Sufficient evidence, both oral and written, of all the facts, can now be produced in London.

13.

Q 2

of the agents employed at Paris. To this gentleman, Mr. Perregaux applied for co-operation; and, after some deliberation between them, it was determined to construe the bond into a treasonable practice against the French nation, for which De Beaume and his coadjutors should be apprehended, and for which it was also determined THEY SHOULD SUFFER

DEATH.

De Beaume and his associates were accordingly apprehended and imprisoned. The tribunal did not at first consider it expedient to treat the charge of borrowing money as criminal; and without great exertions on that occasion by Mr Perregaux and his confederates, they would have been acquitted. But this gentleman succeeded in impressing the tribunal with a belief in the criminal nature of the loan, by inflaming them against the prisoners, whom he represented as being in connection with the British Princes, for the purpose of raising money to assist the French Princes in anti-revolutionary measures, and in treasonable attempts against the republic. The very bond negotiated by the prisoners was denounced as treasonable in the face of it, for declaring George III. to be King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, the prisoners were tried, condemned, and executed within twentyfour hours!

Thus in one day perished Richard, Chandos, Mestriren, Nutte, De Beaume, and Abert, either for negotiating the Princes' securities, or for purchasing shares of them, as was also the case with Viette, a rich jeweller, who had purchased a hundred shares of the bond of De Beaume. The murderous principle thus laid down and the precedent thus established, were adopted on subsequent instances, and from that time, every foreign creditor under De Beaumes' bond who was sent out of England, and landed on the continent, was executed in the same merciless mode upon the same pretence, which was extended even to the creditors who had invested their money in purchasing shares of the bonds.

Would that we could here close this black catalogue of

crime. The next victim who bled on the scaffold, for having been the purchaser of twenty shares of the Princes' bond, was Charles Vaucher, a banker in Paris, who quitted France with a large fortune in 1792. He fixed his residence in England, where he married an English lady. Having demanded payment of the interest on his shares of the Princes' bond, he was referred to the bank of Ransom and Co., when he was advised, if he wished to remain in England, never again to apply for his money; for, if he did, he would be sent out of the country, as many in his situation had already been. This threat did not deter him, he repeated his application, and was equally unsuccessful. He laid his case before Mr. Shepherd, afterwards Sir S. Shepherd, Solicitor General, who decided that his claim upon the Prince was just and legal; and at the close of the opinion which that eminent lawyer gave are the following remarkable words: "If any action be brought with this case, it will require the clearest proof of the facts, and that there is no collusion between De Beaume and Vaucher, because as a bill has been passed for the payment of his Royal Highness's debts, subjecting them to the examinatien of commissioners, it will be a strong argument against the justice of a demand that has been withheld from such examination: however, there is nothing in the bill which prevents a creditor of his Royal Highness from suing, if he choose, in preference to going before commissioners.'

In this opinion, the learned counsel seems to have anticipated the very objection that was raised by the commissioners, and the grounds on which they contested the validity of the claim. The Prince inserted it not in his schedule of debts, he disclaimed it in toto, and, therefore, as the Prince disavowed it, the commissioners could not be called upon to allow it; and the only redress which Vaucher could hope to cbtain, was by an appeal to the laws of the country. A copy of the opinion of Mr. Shepherd was sent, with a polite note, to the Prince of Wales, hoping his Royal Highness would render all legal measures unnecessary, by ordering the interest to be paid. The interest was not paid: the application was renewed to

his Royal Highness, adding, that if no satisfactory answer were returned, such measures would be adopted as would compel his Royal Highness to pay the amount. This threat sealed the destiny of Vaucher, for on the 6th of October, an official order was given for him to quit England in four days. Having other pecuniary matters to arrange, he petitioned the Duke of Portland to allow him to remain until the issue of his claims had been determined. His petition was refused; for on the 11th of October, a warrant was signed by the Duke of Portland, directing William Ross and George Higgins, two of the King's messengers, to take Mr. Vaucher into custody, till he should be sent out of the country. On the 15th, he was taken into custody, and on the 20th he was carried to Harwich, to be sent from thence to Rotterdam, where he arrived on the 23rd of the same month. Not long after his arrival on the continent, he was apprehended, taken to Paris, and thrown into prison, where he remained until the 22nd of December, 1798, on which day he was tried on the same charges as De Beaume, was found guilty, and guillotined !!!

Our limits will not allow us to enter at full into the cases of Mr. D. Lovell, the editor of the Statesman, and that of Mr. Auriol; but proof is on record that, with the diamonds remitted by De Beaume, and the money advanced by Auriol, the sum received by the Prince amounted to between £60,000 and £70,000. sterling.

Our comments shall be short. The pages of history present a melancholy picture of the turpitude of the human heart. If we investigate the character, of our kings, from the conquest to the reign of George IV., and we were to write a catalogue of the vices inherent in our nature, and the crimes which have resulted from those vices, there is not one against which we could not select some individual king to affix his name, as having been the perpetrator of it. The country has already determined, against what vices the name of George IV. ought to be affixed, and the history which we have now given of these bond transactions, will invest him with an indisputable claim to one, which must be too obvious to require any notifica