which the belief of the marriage had been expressed, and declared to be founded "on solid grounds."*

Many of the friends of Mrs. Fitz

* "A Letter, to a Friend, on the reported marriage of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, by Mr. Horne Tooke;" dated April, 1787.-I did not refer to this Letter, till after the reflections, which précede the account of this transac tion, had been written. On reading it, I find a striking conformity of sentiment between Mr. Tooke and myself, on that part of the subject which relates to the relinquishment of his proper state by the Prince of Wales.-The passage in Mr. Tooke's Letter runs thus: "What will be his (the Prince's) feelings hereafter, if some ambassador of his own shall, in a foreign land, retire from the station and dignity which he was appointed to uphold, as the representative of his sovereign, in order to apply the income of his office to the discharge of his debts; and thus attempt to avoid the reproach of private insolvency, by the misapplication of public money? The revenue of the Prince of Wales is granted to the heir apparent to live like the heir apparent; and in trust that he will maintain a correspondent state for his dignity is the dignity of the nation, and the revenue is not his to apply to any other purpose." It would be astonishing that a truth so obvious, and so strong, should never have been pressed on his Royal Highness, if it were not a melancholy fact, that few are found with sufficient honesty and virtue to speak truth to princes!

He

In another popular tract, published at the beginning of the same year, the marriage was pointedly alluded to: (the Prince) may give the final wound to his popularity, and to the fond partiality of a great people, by forming a connection of so ambiguous, so enigmatical, and so undefined a nature, that mankind, with anxious, but fearful, eyes, shall tremble to

herbert positively asserted the fact of the marriage; and even the name of the clergyman who had performed the ceremony was mentioned. It was, therefore, essentially due to the character of the Prince, which had been subjected, on this account, to many rude and licentious attacks, to promote such an investigation of the business as should fully satisfy the public mind. And that satisfaction could not have been próduced without such an explicit and peremptory denial of the fact, upon the direct authority of the Prince, as that which the question of Mr. Rolle extorted from Mr. Fox.

Another error, into which the friends of the Prince fell upon this occasion, was their forbearance to declare their sense of the transaction, if it had really taken place, and which was duly described by Mr. Rolle as full of danger to the church and state. A brief review of the law upon the case will suffice to shew the justice with which he characterized it.

explore, what yet they desire to ascertain.-And if this extraordinary and nameless union should be formed with a person, of a religious persuasion different from that of the country in which so strange a scene is acted, it is only to contempt and ridicule that he can fly, to avoid general disapprobation and resentment." A Short Review of the Political State of Great Britain, at the commencement of the year 1787.-Fourth Edition-p. 18.

The statute I. of William and Mary, st. 2. c. 2. s. 9. contains the following clause: "And "whereas it hath been found by experience, "that it is inconsistent with the safety and "welfare of this protestant kingdom, to be "governed by a popish prince, or by any king "or queen marrying a papist; the said lords, spiritual and temporal, and commons, do fur66 ther pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall "be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist,* shall be excluded, and be for ever in

66

* Mr. Tooke, indeed, whose letter bears a tone of authority, not likely to be assumed, without good reason, asserts, that Mrs. Fitzherbert was not a papist.-" Whatever religious opinions Mrs. Fitzherbert may or may not have formerly enter"tained, (a matter perfectly indifferent) her royal highness is NOT a papist. And whoever shall assert the contrary, if they mean to do it either with honesty, or safety to themselves, "should take good care to be well-provided with evidence,

66

"I think I am well justified in asserting, that, since the period of her marriage, her royal highness has not performed any one act of any kind whatever, which can justify such a "denomination. And not only my own opinion of her understanding and good sense assures me of it, but such authority, as leaves no doubt, in my mind, confirms the assurance, that "she is both ready and willing, at any time, to give proof of "her conformity to the established religion of the land." Letter-p. 42.

"capable to inherit, possess, or enjoy; the "crown and government of this realm and Ire"land, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or "exercise, any regal power, authority, or juris diction, within the same; and in all and

every such case or cases, the people of this "realm shall be, and are hereby, absolved of "their allegiance; and the said crown and "government shall, from time to time, descend "to, and be enjoyed by, such person or per་ sons, being protestants, as should have in"herited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled to, holding communion, or professing, or marrying, as "aforesaid, were naturally dead."

It is perfectly clear, that the forfeiture of his right to the crown is, by this law, attached to the mere act of marriage between the lawful heir and a papist. The words are clear and positive; they admit of no quibble or subterfuge; their meaning cannot be mistaken, nor

Whether or not Mrs. Fitzherbert was prepared to sacrifice her religion for the prospect of a throne, it is not now worth while to enquire; but it is very certain, that, since the period in question, she has openly professed the Romish faith, and had her regular director, who has boasted, and probably not without reason, that she is, though a secret, a very staunch friend to the cause of popery.

evaded. But it has been contended, that the penalty of this statute has been rendered null by a subsequent act of Parliament, passed in the twelfth year of the present King, for the purpose of regulating the marriages of the royal family, as far as the consent of the Sovereign was concerned. By the eleventh chapter of that statute, it is enacted, "that no descendant of "the body of his late majesty, George the second, male or female, (other than the issue of "Princesses, who have married, or may here

.

after marry, into foreign families) shall be capable "of contracting matrimony, without the previous "consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, "signified under the great seal, and declared in "council; and that every marriage, or matri"monial contract, of any such descendant, "without such consent first had and obtained, "shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." Now, it has been pretended, that as this act renders all marriages, without the consent of the King, null and void, it annihilates, as it were, the marriage of the heir apparent with a papist, and so exempts him from all the penalties attached to such marriage by the act of the first of William and Mary. If this reasoning was at all valid, it would extend much farther, and prevent the deposition of a Sovereign who should marry a