POLITICAL CHARACTERS-GEO. III. AND IV. (OCTOBER, 1838.) Remarks on an Article in the Edinburgh Review, No. 135, on the Times of George the Third and George the Fourth. By Lieutenant-General Sir HERBERT TAYLOR, G.C.B. London, 1838.1 8vo. THE author of this well-meant and interesting pamphlet is one of the most able as well as the most respectable persons who have ever appeared at the Court of this country. Although we may differ in opinion with him upon general subjects, and although we cannot at all agree in the estimate which he has formed of those characters whom it is the object of his publication to defend against our strictures, we yet are bound to admit his claims to a respectful and even a favourable hearing, in defence of persons whom he enjoyed singular opportunities of knowing, and to whose merits, after their death, he bears his disinterested testimony. We must begin by admitting to a certain extent the truth of an observation which closes his Tract, that the person who holds an office at Court, or the confidential servant of a king or a prince, is not necessarily, as the common opinion goes, "a sycophant, and habitually a flatterer, or ready to do dirty work. If any proof were wanting that the general impression on this point is far too sweeping, it would only be necessary to name Sir Herbert Taylor, who for above thirty years held the most important and confidential situation about Court that any subject could fill; and whose nature is as utterly incapable of sycophancy as it is of dishonesty-as far above deceiving 1 See page 431. a master as above maltreating an inferior; and one whom no prince would ever have seen again near his person had he dared proposed to him the performance of any degrading office. We are very far from believing that all, or the greater number of men in those stations, resemble Sir Herbert in this particular. We are satisfied that the inferior characters which generally surround thrones seldom exhibit any independence of principle; and not unfrequently lend themselves to the performance of unworthy tasks by mean compliances. The whole history of Courts, the unvaried annals of Royal and of ordinary human nature, bear testimony to the truth of our opinion. But that the rule is not universal, and that there are sometimes found splendid exceptions, we admit. Nay, we will go further in agreeing with our author, and allow that much more truth is spoken privately at Courts by dependents, even by the inferior order of dependents, than is generally supposed; probably much more than is pleasing to Royal ears, and certainly much more than Royal minds ever profit by. It has been our lot to know instances of this fact, which left no room for doubting that towards those exalted individuals the duty-the painful and even perilous duty, of speaking the unpleasing truth, was discharged by persons who gained very little credit for so doing with the world at large. It is also to be considered that there oftentimes subsists a greater degree of familiarity between princes, and their immediate attendants, than between private individuals and their friends. This naturally leads to advice and hints and warnings rarely given by the most intimate of other men's associates; not to mention that the prince's friend has a direct interest in his master's welfare, which a private gentleman's comrade really cannot have. But then we must add, that the practice, if often repeated, has never failed, according to our observation, to beget an impatience and even dislike in the Illustrious bosom; consequently the connexion either ceased in a short time, or was continued upon a "reformed footing "—that is, upon greater caution and abstinence in tendering warning or advice. But we must repeat, that we firmly believe the whole course of Sir Herbert Taylor's exercise of such a delicate office, and such an important one has never before fell into the hands of any courtier, was throughout marked by the most unsullied honour towards all parties with whom he came in contact-whether monarchs, or their families, or their ministers, or private individuals. Nor have we any doubt whatever, that upon all occasions his best advice was offered according to the dictates of a scrupulous conscience, and a judgment hardly to be surpassed in clearness and calmness, although certainly biassed by what we should call some very erroneous opinions-the result of early prejudices not yet thrown off. It is a very inferior praise to add, that in the exercise of a most difficult and laborious duty he was one of the ablest, indeed the most masterly men of business who ever filled any public employment. In stating these things we give the result of a testimony, uniform and concurrent, borne to the merits of this distinguished individual by all parties with whom he ever was brought in contact. We now proceed to this pamphlet, and we shall shortly state why we still differ with Sir Herbert Taylor on most of his points; but where we think he has proved anything favourable to the personages in question we shall give him and them the full benefit of the proofs by recording the facts in our own pages. The interests of truth and justice require this, and we cannot possibly have any other to serve. It is highly characteristic of his manly and honest nature that he begins with expressing those feelings of scorn and disgust with which he, as well as all other right-thinking persons, were filled by a perusal of the book that called forth our observations, and gave occasion to our Sketches of Character. But enough of a work now, it is to be hoped, consigned to oblivion as well as contempt. Let us, before we proceed further, only protest against Sir Herbert Taylor's assumption that our portraitures were influenced by either "rancorous" feelings of a personal kind, or motives of "party hostility" towards any of the Royal persons of whom we were called to treat. There really was not, nor could there be, the least intermixture of such sentiments. Party had nothing at all to do with the matter; the connexion of either George the father or George the son with party is now only matter of history: and they who support the present Ministry are supporting some of those who were the Ministers of both Princes, and others who were, at least, the son's most cherished personal friends. We sought the truth, and the truth only; if we coloured highly, it was because the facts appeared to be darkened by deep shades; if we spoke strongly, it was because our indignation was roused; if we still refuse to lower our tone of reprobation, it is because we think— calmly and deliberately think-that Sir Herbert Taylor has, after his well-meant attempt, left the case against them where he found it; and that he himself, if natural feelings of personal friendship did not blind him, would agree with us in viewing their misdeeds as we formerly did, and as, at this hour, we still regard them. The word "libel," is repeatedly employed by our author in referring to our pages -and about a word we will not quarrel. But let him be pleased to observe that, according to this phraseology, many pages in all histories must change their names; and that in future we must quote the "libels" and not the Annals of Tacitus, or even the Decades of Livy. The pain which the historian may give to many friends was never yet reckoned any reason either for not recording recent events, or for suppressing discreditable truths; and our author has not quite shown his accustomed candour when he passes over those passages in our pages which betokened a disposition to commend, where the truth allowed of praise, and even to soften the harsher features of character, by casting the blame rather upon the station than the man. His most cherished friend in the Royal Family was the Duke of York. What writer on the liberal side of the question ever defended that amiable Prince before ourselves? Sir Herbert Taylor should have reflected on this, as well as other parts of our Paper, before he pronounced the whole a libel, and ascribed its rancour to the violence of party animosity. To begin with George the Third. We stated that his understanding was narrow, and that no culture had enlarged it. Our author cannot deny the latter part of this proposition; and he says that the King admitted and re gretted his want of education. But he says that his Majesty afterwards read the history of his own country, which we will venture to say every Prince knows almost by heart; just as the most ignorant country gentlemen are found to know the pedigrees of their own families and even of their neighbours: he added to this, according to our author, the study of the laws and constitution of England; but as it was not till 1805, on his blindness, that their intercourse began, we may be allowed to doubt whether George III. knew more of these subjects than every king must, who attends to the business of his high office; and there is no doubt that his attention to his own business was most unremitting. This ought to have been stated by us, if, indeed, we did not admit it by implication. Sir Herbert Taylor adds, which we believe to be in a sense true, that he possessed "a knowledge of business in every department, and in all its details, such as perhaps no one man ever possessed." Possibly he might, if by this is meant the common public departments. This knowledge is not so rare among sovereigns as to make it a great marvel. They come in contact with most departments; and they can always tell very accurately what particular matter belongs to each particular office. They are exceedingly nice in this knowledge; they are very peremptory in exacting attention to it; the kind of knowledge itself, like heraldry and etiquette, in which all Princes are adepts, suits their taste, and appertains to their station; besides, they find protection in requiring an observance of all the rules that divide power, and keep their Ministers to their several departments. That George III. had any enlarged knowledge of parliamentary learning-that he was at all versed in the constitution or jurisdiction of courts of justice that he understood the details of banking or of commerce, much less their principles-that he knew anything of Colonial, and still less of East Indian affairs—or that he had any but the most vague and personal knowledge of the interests of Foreign Courts-we will not believe, unless we see proofs far more exact than our author's general assertion; which, indeed, can only apply to the very limited branch of information first mentioned. - |
