ter sur le trône de ses pères que pour faire périr ses amis par des bourreaux. **** Si quelque chose justifie ceux qui croient à une fatalité, à laquelle rien ne peut se soustraire, c'est cette suite continuelle de malheurs qui a persécuté la maison de Stuart pendant plus de trois cents années." In more recent times, another French writer, Sevelinges, describes the race of the Stuarts, as "une race royale poursuivie pendant plus de trois siècles par une fatalité inexplicable."

Frederick von Raumer, in his Elizabeth und Maria, expresses himself in a similar manner in speaking of the Stuarts; and again in his Geschichte Europa's seit dem Ende des funfzehnten Jahrhunderts "As there are unfortunate individuals," he says, "so there are unfortunate families. The fate of Mary forms but one scene in the terrible and interminable tragedy of the Stuarts. Her ancestor, in the sixth generation counting upwards, King Robert III., had a nephew, Alexander Stuart, who, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, murdered Malcolm Drummond, the brother of the Queen of Scotland, and married his widow with the queen's consent: a companion picture to the history of Darnley, Bothwell, and Mary. The Duke of Albany, Robert's brother, threw his nephew, Robert's son, into prison, and kept him without food till he gnawed away the flesh from his own limbs, and at length died. As soon as Rothsay's brother, James I., had ascended the throne, he sought and found an opportunity to have all the sons of Alexander beheaded, for which, in 1436, he was surprised in his turn, partly by his own relatives, and killed with sixteen wounds. James's widow offered the murderers to the manes of her husband, in a way that reminds one of the vengeance of Queen Agnes after the murder of Emperor Albert, of Germany. James II. caused two of his nephews, the Douglases, to be beheaded, murdered the third with his own hand, and met with a violent death at the siege of Roxburgh. James III. (Mary's great-grandfather) was involved in a sanguinary feud, at first with his brother, the Duke of Albany, and afterwards with his own son. Against the latter, he lost the battle of Sauchieburn, and was assassinated during his flight. James IV. (Mary's grandfather) did not find in his ill-acquired power the enjoyment which he had expected, and was killed in the battle of

Flodden. James V. (Mary's father) was driven mad by the turbulent disposition of his nobles, and died eight days after the birth of his daughter. So much for the ancestors of Mary! Now for her descendants-James I. (VI. in Scotland); Charles I.; Charles II.; and James II.; four kings, of whom it is difficult to say, whether they were more unfortunate, or more deserving of misfortune. Before the Stuarts were driven from power for the second and last time, James II. caused his nephew, the Duke of Monmouth, to be executed and thus closed the three centuries of blood and misery of this unblest dynasty."

Similar causes, however, under similar circumstances, are always likely to produce similar effects; and there is, therefore, nothing surprising in the similarity of destiny that appears to have attached itself to the whole race of the Stuarts. On the other hand, there certainly is something surprising in the fact, that the whole Stuart dynasty should not present us with one sovereign remarkable for his ability; and here certainly the popular comparison of the Stuarts with the Bourbons is at fault, however applicable the comparison may be in other respects. Yet, even so late as in March, 1830, we find the Baron von Stein writing in these terms:-"The comparison of the Stuarts with the Bourbons is an audacious falsehood, which every page of history disproves. I will content myself with a reference to Hallam's Constitutional History of England. The Stuarts aimed at unlimited power, they governed by ordinances, they levied taxes not voted by parliament, they encroached upon the deliberative freedom of the national representatives by fines and imprisonments, they disturbed the independence of justice, and persecuted the Puritans. From 1667 to 1688 the Stuarts were decidedly antiEuropean. Opposed to them stood William III., respected alike as a statesman and as a soldier. The Bourbons renounced despotism (1787-1789) of their own accord, and a worthy and estimable king was beheaded. Another, Louis XVIII., gave a constitution that contains all the most valuable elements of civil freedom. The cause of the Bourbons is a European cause, and where is the man that might rise against them? Is it the old babbler, Lafayette, who was carried away by the torrent of the Revolution, to be vomited forth again by the same Revolution? or a republic? of Frenchmen!

How long would it last?" (See Gagern, mein Antheil an der Politik. Thl. IV. S. 300.)

We cannot, however, agree with the venerable statesman. The Bourbons obtained the French throne nearly about the same time that the Stuarts ascended that of England. Both dynasties struggled for the possession of absolute power, both were devoted to Popery, and rated its interests higher than the happiness of their subjects, or the security of the throne. The resemblance between the histories of the two houses is, therefore, most remarkable, and the events which occurred in France from 1789 to 1830, or to the accession of LouisPhilippe, the William the Third of France, present almost a counterpart to the history of England from 1640 to 1688; and, even in their duration, the two periods approximate to each other in a remarkable manner. At the same time, the Stuarts and the Bourbons show many points of dissimilarity. Voss observes with justice (Der Biograph. Bd. IV. S. 34), in an article headed "James III., otherwise known under the name of the Chevalier de St. George," that with all the similarity between the fortunes of the two houses, "the Stuarts have for them the interest of active enterprise, and an almost romantic alternation of fortune." Besides,-and this appears to me the most important part of the comparison,-we must admit that, among the kings of the Stuart family we vainly look for a Louis XIV. or a Louis XVIII., to say nothing of a Henry IV.; Louis XI., and Francis I. in many respects, and Louis XVI. and Charles X. in almost all respects, find their exact counterparts in the house of Stuart, namely, in Charles I. and James II. Hume says, towards the conclusion of his History of England :-" It was the fate of the house of Stuart to govern England at a period when the former source of authority was already much diminished, and before the latter began to flow in any tolerable abundance. Without a regular and fixed foundation, the throne perpetually tottered, and the prince sat upon it anxiously and precariously." This and similar passages, in which Hume seeks to palliate the conduct of the Stuarts, in no way invalidate the assertion, that the whole dynasty has not one great or wise prince to boast of.

The above remark of the never-to-be-forgotten Stein is the more remarkable, as it was written when Polignac was already in power, and the revolution of July close at hand.

CHAPTER IV.

BIRTH OF CHARLES STUART, THE YOUNG PRETENDERDEATH OF HIS MOTHER-HIS OWN AND HIS BROTHER'S EDUCATION NEGLECTED.

IN the very first year of their union, the Princess Clementine was able to gratify the Chevalier de St. George by the hope of an heir to his name and his pretensions. James did not fail to apprise the Pope, in a private audience, of the hopeful condition of his consort, nor did he leave his adherents in England in ignorance of the fact.* Shortly afterwards, by a circular dated the 10th of July, 1720, according to the old established custom of royalty, he invited the

* Bishop Atterbury, in his answer to James (6th May, 1720), says: "I cannot end this letter without my particular congratulation upon the affair of your Majesty's partner, which you have pleased to communicate to all of us. It is the most acceptable news which can reach the ear of a good Englishman. May it be followed every day with such other accounts as may convince the world, that Heaven has at last undertaken your cause, and is resolved to put an end to your sufferings !" (History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. By Lord Mahon. In three volumes. Vol. 2, Appendix, p. xii.) In a letter to the Earl of Oxford, James consults him respecting the individuals to be invited as witnesses to the delivery of Clementine.

high dignitaries of Great Britain to be present at the delivery of the queen. At the same time, the prospect of the approaching joys of paternity led the Chevalier de St. George to redouble his attentions to his consort, with whom he now appeared, much more frequently than before, in the higher circles of Rome, and drove frequently with her to Albano, Castel Gandolfo, and other places.

On the last day of the year (1720), at 5 P. M., Clementine was happily delivered of a prince, but not till after a protracted labour of six days, which the Holy Father vainly endeavoured to shorten by the prayers which he offered up to St. Thomas, in the English national church dedicated to that saint, although he chose the saint's own day for these pious supplications. More than two hundred persons of high rank, and of both sexes, were present at the birth of the prince, the hero of our history. Among others, there were seven cardinals, and fourteen English, Scottish, and Irish noblemen, to attest the birth of the new-born infant*: thus leaving

*

Among those named as present at the prince's birth, are:Cardinals Paolucci and Barberini, in the name of the Pope; Gualtieri, as Protector of England; Sacripanti, as Protector of Scotland; Imperiali, as Protector of Ireland; Ottoboni, as Protector of France, and papal vice-chancellor; Aquaviva, as minister of Spain;