while the people from whom the means of gratifying his vicious propensities were wrung, were ground to the earth, and kept there.

We have thus given a limited view of the boundless extravagance of one of our Monarchs, in order to be able to draw the contrast more forcibly between George IV. and his successor, William IV., who whatever his youthful aberrations might have been, exhibited himself on the throne, as the pattern of moral excellence, and Christian virtue.

There perhaps never existed a Prince, in modern times, who had so fine a family as George III.; but, perhaps, there never was a father, who experienced greater trouble and chagrin, when his offspring arrived at that age, when they began to spurn at parental control, and fancying that Princes are not amenable to the same moral laws as other men, ran into every kind of excess and debauchery, which instilled into the minds of the people a disgust for royalty, which the character of William IV. has in some degree softened, and which his successor will do well, if she takes special heed not to increase it.

To enter into a full detail of the genealogical history of the House of Brunswick, would be carrying us as far back as the subversion of the Roman Empire, as antiquarians have traced its descent from one Caius Etius, a Roman of some consequence, who flourished in the latter part of the fourth century. It must, however, be observed, that the antiquarians above alluded to, were born in Germany, and it is well known that the natives of that country are so much attached to hereditary rank, that there are few who cannot trace their genealogy as far back as Charlemagne, and not a few even to Noah. A man in Germany, without a well ramified genealogical tree, is like a man in England without a character, he is thought nothing of; but a genealogical tree can be manufactured in Germany as well as in England, the root of it approaching Adam, in proportion to the price that has been paid for it. We briefly allude to this circumstance from the knowledge we possess, that there are not those wanting who assert that there

is a good deal of fiction in the genealogical tree of the Brunswick family, and that some branches have been engrafted on it of so spurious an origin, that they ought to be lopped off all together, especially that which belongs to Caius Etius. It is, however, generally admitted that the genuine descent of the Princes of Brunswick must be looked for on the other side of the Alps, and therefore Rome will answer the purpose as well as any other place.

The founders of the Brunswick family may be considered to be the Marquesses of d'Este, the name now borne by the children of the Duke of Sussex, who are legitimate in the of God, but not according to the profound wisdom of the legiseyes lature of Great Britain.

The Mecklenburgh Strelitzes, the Coburg Saalfelds, the Saxe Meiningens, and others of the petty principalities of Germany, possess a kind of patent right to furnish the Princes of the Blood Royal of this country with suitable and sometimes unsuitable wives, whenever the Privy Council determine, that it is the interest of the State that they should marry, and it is to the first of these countries that we are indebted, for the mother of William IV. He was born at Buckingham House, on the 21st of August, 1765, at three o'clock in the morning. As usual on such occasions, the ante-rooms were filled with the high officers of State, and amongst the ladies shone pre-eminently the Princess Dowager of Wales, than whom no one could give more correct information respecting the much disputed legitimacy of George III., and which at the present day is much wanted, to establish the right of his children to the throne of this kingdom.

The Tower guns were fired to announce to the people of the metropolis, "the great event" of the birth of another Prince and in the fulness of their loyalty, a considerable number of them placed some lighted candles in their windows, for the purpose of testifying their joy, it being a custom consistent with the sense and wisdom "of the most civilized people of the world," and which Goldsmith has so properly and keenly ridiculed in his "Citizen of the World."

Seven days after the birth of the voung Prince, the Corpo

ration of London proceeded in State to St. James Palace, with the following address to the King

"Most gracious Sovereign!-We your Majesty's ever loyal and faithful subjects, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the city of London, in Common Council assembled, humbly beseech your Majesty to accept our most sincere and dutiful congratulations on the safe delivery of the Queen, and the auspicious birth of another Prince."

The joyful event of an increase in your Majesty's illustrious family, will always be gratefully considered by us, as a further substantial security, to the civil and religious liberties of this your Majesty's free and native country.

Every addition to your Majesty's domestic happiness, fills our hearts with the highest pleasure and satisfaction, and fully confiding, that your Majesty's royal sentiments, ever coincide with the united wishes of your faithful people, we gladly embrace every opportunity of testifying our joy, and laying our congratulations at your Majesty's feet.

Permit us therefore, Royal Sir, to assure your Majesty, that your faithful Citizens of London, from their zealous attachment to your Royal House, and the true honour and dignity of your Crown, whenever a happy establishment of public measures shall present a favourable occasion, will be ready to exert their utmost abilities, in support of such wise councils, as apparently tend, to render your Majesty's reign, happy and glorious."

The following was the answer of the King:

"I thank you for this dutiful address. Your congratulations on the further increase of my family, and your assurances of zealous attachment to it, cannot but be very agreeable to me. I have nothing so much at heart, as the welfare and happiness of my people, and have the greatest satisfaction in every event that may be an additional security to those civil and religious liberties, upon which the prosperity of this kingdom depends.”

A King's Speech upon the opening of Parliament, and a King's answer to an address, are in point of sense and mean

ing, pretty much on a par; analyze them in whatever alembic you will, and a caput mortuum is the result. At the presentation however, of this address, rather a ludicrous circumstance occurred. The Right Honorable Frederick Bull, was then Lord Mayor of the City of London, and at that period, the honor of Knighthood was as eagerly covetted, as it was profusely granted by George III., to the outrage, sometimes of all propriety and decorum. The carrying up of an address to his Majesty, was then considered as an indisputable passport to the honor of knighthood, and the King, having on this occasion, delivered his answer, was about to retire, when the Lord in waiting intimated to his Majesty, that the Lord Mayor was waiting to be knighted.-"Eh! what," exclaimed the Monarch,-"waiting to be knighted !—what, what's his name?" "Frederick Bull, please your Majesty," responded the Lord in waiting. "Frederick?" exclaimed the King, 66 a very good name,-a very good name indeed-it is the name of my second son-but Bull !-I never knighted a Bull in my life-some relation I suppose to John Bull. Exactly so, please your Majesty," said the pliant courtier-“ A good, a worthy family," said the King-"have heard a good deal about them I'll knight him," and accordingly plain Frederick Bull Esq. returned to the Mansion House, Sir Frederick Bull, to the great delight of Mrs. Bull, and all the younger branches of the Bull family.

66

The baptism of the royal infant, took place on the 18th of September, in the Grand Council Chamber at St. James Palace, the ceremony being performed by Dr. Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was christened William Henry, after his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who stood sponsor on the occasion with his brother, Prince Henry Frederick, and the Princess of Brunswick. As the Romans, the supposed progenitors of the Brunswick family, had their lucky, and their unlucky months, so have their descendants, a particular month, in which fortune appears to have been bountiful to them. The three first children of George III, were born in the month of August. By the death of Queen Anne, in

August, the Brunswick family ascended the throne of these realms. Augusta, the eldest child of Frederick, Prince of Wales, was born in August. James I. and his consort Elizabeth, the immediate predecessors of the present Royal Family, were both born in August, and William the Fourth, and Adelaide his Queen, were also born in August.

On the 19th of August, 1767, Prince William Henry, was inoculated for the small pox, in despite of all the obloquy which had been thrown upon his parents, at the time of the inoculation of his two royal brothers, by a set of purblind, prejudiced creatures, who actually pretended to behold in the practice of inoculation, an interference in the affairs of Heaven, incompatible with a human being, and some over zealous, and puritanical preachers extended their folly so far, as to denounce it from the pulpit, as an act of an impious tendency, and their Majesties came in for an extravagant share of abuse from those worthy and enlightened souls, for they had endangered the lives of their two elder sons by the unjustifiable practice of inoculation, thereby frustrating the hopes of a nation, of a legitimate successor to the Crown, and now, not taking any notice of the repeated advice, that had been given them on the subject, they were continuing in their career of infatuation and impiety, by the inoculation of their third son. In despite, however, of all the anathemas from the pulpit, their Majesties, steadily and boldly, adhered to the practice of inoculation, and to the resolution which they displayed on this important matter, may be attributed the overthrow of the many obstacles, which had been thrown in the way of its general practice.

Exemplary as Queen Charlotte was in many of her domestic duties, yet it must not be concealed that in her general conduct, she was decidedly anti-english. She had not yet learnt to conform to the manners of the English People, and she consequently gave at times, great offence, by an injudicious and an obstinate adherence to the stiff and rigid ceremony of a German Court, to the total exclusion of those more free