probably originated the following ballad, which was much in vogue at the period:

"Here lies Fred,

Who was alive and is dead:

Had it been his father,

I had much rather;

Had it been his brother,
Still better than another;

Had it been his sister,

No one would have missed her;
Had it been the whole generation,

Still better for the nation;

But since 'tis only Fred,

Who was alive and is dead,

There's no more to be said."

The manner in which the duke received the tidings of his brother's loss was characteristic of that unfeeling personage. "It is a great blow to this country," he said, with a sneer, "but I hope it will recover it in time." Prince George, afterward King George the Third, then only in his thirteenth year, was, perhaps, the person most affected by his father's death. On the fact being communicated to him he wept much, turned pale, and laid his hand upon his breast. Ayscough, his tutor, said to him, "I am afraid, sir, you are not well?" "I felt," he said, "something here, just as I did when I saw the two workmen fall from the scaffold at Kew."

As regards the character of Frederick, Prince

of Wales, sufficient perhaps has already been said. He is reported to have selected Edward the Black Prince as his model; but, as Horace Walpole sarcastically observes, "he resembled him in no other point than in dying before his father." It seems to have been the warlike reputation of his illustrious predecessor that the prince was most eager to emulate, since, like his father, he delighted in military parade, and would willingly have taken an active part in the field. In 1734 he petitioned the king to be allowed to serve a campaign in the Imperial army on the Rhine, and when the rebellion broke out in 1745 he warmly solicited the command of the royal army. What remains to

be said of the prince's character may be summed up in a few words. "His best quality," says Walpole, "was generosity; his worst, insincerity, and indifference to truth." He was obstinate, yet weak; fond of power, yet easily led; and from his love of flattery was always open to imposition. In a sermon, preached at Mayfair Chapel, on the occasion of the prince's death, the clergyman is said to have drawn his character in the following words: "He had no great parts, but he had great virtues; indeed, they degenerated into vices; he was very generous, but I hear his generosity has ruined a great many people. And then his condescension was such that he kept very bad company." Extraordinary as this sentence appears, it certainly contains much that is true. In a word, it can

t

scarcely be doubted from a review of the prince's character and conduct that, had he lived to succeed his father on the throne, England would have derived but a questionable advantage from his becoming the ruler of her destinies.

CHAPTER III.

AUGUSTA, PRINCESS OF WALES.

Daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha — Born in 1709— Married to the Prince of Wales in Her Twenty-eighth Year - Nuptial Ceremonies - Her Good Conduct as a Wife and Mother - Her Agony on Witnessing the Prince's Sudden Death George the Second's Kindness to Her and Her Children His Visit to the Princess - Discreet Behaviour and Popularity of the Princess Her Subsequent Unpopularity after the Accession of Her Son, George the Third, to the Throne Her Presumed Liaison with Lord Bute - Horace Walpole's and Wraxall's Remarks on the Subject - The Princess Pays off Her Deceased Husband's Debts- Her Strength of Mind - Her Sudden Death in 1772.

THIS sensible and accomplished woman, whose misfortune it was to be the wife of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and whose only fault was to be blind to his unworthiness, was the daughter of Frederick the Second, Duke of Saxe-Gotha. She was born on the 19th of November, 1709, and at the period when she became Princess of Wales was in her twenty-eighth year. She arrived in England on the 25th of April, 1736, and two days afterward we find her conducted from Greenwich to Lambeth in one of the king's coaches drawn by six horses. From Lambeth (probably with a

view of sparing her the discomfort of being gazed at by a large concourse of people) she was conducted in one of the queen's chairs to St. James's Palace, where George the Second and his consort were in readiness to receive her. The same evening she dined with the royal family, and at eight o'clock the marriage procession moved toward the Chapel Royal, where she was united to the prince by the Bishop of London. At ten o'clock the royal party sat down to supper in the presence of a large crowd of spectators, and at twelve o'clock the prince and princess were put to bed. Company were then formally admitted to the nuptial chamber, and the indelicate ceremonials, which were permitted on such occasions during the last century, were duly performed. It may be mentioned that the last instance of this kind of license having been practised at a royal marriage in England was as late as 1797, at the marriage of the Queen of Wirtemburg, eldest daughter of George the Third.

During the lifetime of her husband we discover but few particulars respecting the princess. "The Princess of Wales," says Lord Waldegrave, "distinguished herself, during the life of the prince, her husband, by a most decent and prudent behaviour; and the king, notwithstanding his aversion to his son, behaved to her not only with great politeness, but with the appearance of cordiality and affection." "The princess," observes the