De Beaume, through Perregaux, were converted into cash, and made use of by the Prince. Did he ever pay for these diamonds? and if not, how came they into his hands?

If this reasoning be conclusive, it follows that the diamonds being vouched for as a remittance, and the proceeds acknowledged, was a good and sufficient consideration, according to the terms of the bonds, and, therefore, that their payment was compulsory on the grantors; that the means taken to frustrate the payment were highly illegal, and the parties concerned in doing so guilty, according to the then law, of a misdemeanour, by a breach of covenant, by which the bona fide holder was cheated out of his property.

This is rather an argument on the case before stating it; and we now proceed to give what we know to be nearly the whole of the facts which characterize this extraordinary proceeding, and to which we have alluded in another part of these Memoirs.

The plan proposed by Mr. de Beaume, to raise a large sum of money on the continent for the use of the Princes, was very similar to that which was negotiated by the Boas in Holland the three Princes giving their joint security for the fulfilment of the stipulations. Mr. Bicknell was accordingly directed by the Princes to prepare a bond for their execution for 100,000, payable to De Beaume, and vesting in him the power to divide it into one thousand pounds each, by printed copies of the bond, which, under the signature of De Beaume, with the amount and number certified by a notary public, should be as binding on the Princes as if executed, by themselves. They made themselves, their heirs, executors, goods, and effects, liable to these conditions, just as they did in the bond to Messrs. Boas. The original bond was deposited, in trust, in the bank of Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley; while an attested copy was immeditely delivered to De Beaume, and the bankers' acknowledgment of holding such a security was given as De Beaume's authority and credentials, as the agent of the three illustrious Princes, who, in this instance, seem to

have taken every precaution to secure themselves against imposition.

The bankers, to facilitate De Beaume's plan, gave him a letter of introduction to their correspondent in Paris, M. Perregaux. Thus provided, De Beaume went to Paris as the agent of the Prince of Wales, and established himself there in that capacity. The French Revolution then wore a very serious aspect, troubles seemed increasing, and many of the French wished to leave their country till better times. As by remitting bills to England they sustained a very heavy loss, the securities of the British Princes were eagerly purchased from De Beaume by those who wished to emigrate, because those securities were not only more portable than specie, but they were purchased without being subject to the fluctuations of the course of exchange, and at the time were considered as the best negotiable securities in the market. The unfortunate French who purchased them and came hither, thought themselves perfectly safe in this country; but as they could not get any money paid on them, they were involved in great difficulty, and consequently became very urgent and clamorous.

The Duke of Portland was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to him came many complaints from Carlton House against such of the emigrants as were most troublesome and unjust in demanding their money. The Duke of Portland, whose head, in many instances, partook of the nature of the produce of Portland Island, was very attentive to every complaint made on this subject. They were sent out of the country, as in the former instance, and landed on the continent. Twenty-six foreigners, who were creditors of the Princes, and who had placed the most implicit reliance on the honour and faith of a British Prince, were sent out of England, though no charge was preferred against them. Of these twenty-six unfortunate creditors of the Princes, so sent out of the country, fourteen are traced to the guillotine, and their deaths are recorded in the bloody annals of that instrument. The remaining twelve of the unhappy exiles were creditors under

any

the bond of Messrs. Boas; every effort to trace them any where has been in vain-no hint at their fate shall be given, the annals of these times are sufficiently black with crime, without our adding unnecessarily to the depth of the colouring. It is, however, an accredited fact, that the Prince of Wales, on several occasions and to various persons, did deny the receipt. of consideration for the bond to De Beaume. We presume not to question the confidence which ought to be placed in his royal word, but it requires no small degree of ingenuity to reconcile the truth of his royal declaration with the incontrovertible circumstances disclosed in this narrative. For his conduct in the negotiation of this bond, poor De Beaume was censured, though from the facts that appear, it is not easy to say on what just ground the censure could be maintained. He was greatly blamed, however; and the displeasure against him amounted so high, as to induce the Princes to conceal the bond they had executed, which was actually done, the trustees delivering the bond for the express purpose; which, notwithstanding the manifest injustice of the measure, was cancelled at Burlington House, in the presence of the Duke of Portland, on the 16th of November, 1790-not quite one month after De Beaume had sent to the Prince of Wales more than one third of the whole sum as a single remittance. This remittance was made by De Beaume in diamonds, through the bank of Perregaux at Paris, to the bank of Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley, on account of the Princes. The diamonds thus remitted were to the amount of 38,653l. 10s.

To animadvert upon the conduct of the Prince of Wales on this occasion, would be a task which we will not take upon ourselves to perform. We have the bills of parcel of these diamonds now before us-they were disposed of by the bankers for the benefit of the Prince: on what ground of common justice, then, could the Prince declare, that he had received no consideration whatever for the bond? An act of this kind, committed by a private individual, would stamp his character for life; we know not, then, why a Prince can do that with impunity, which, if done by a more humble

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. Q 2

13.