taining a speech to both houses of parliament, requesting power to nominate a regent, with council, in case of his death occurring before his successor should attain eighteen years of age. This paper his majesty left with the ministers, having previously fixed the day for going to the house. As this was

the first notice administration had received of this design, they were thrown into considerable surprise. The speech was written, and the measures was formed, without their participation, or even their knowledge. They were not, therefore, very ardent in their support of it. A bill, however, was brought into the House of Lords, in conformity with the contents of the speech, "To vest in the king the power of appointing, by instruments in writing under his sign manual, either the queen, or any other person in the royal family, usually residing in Great Britain, to the office of regency." A doubt arising on the question, Who are the royal family of Great Britain ?" it was explained as comprehending the descendants of George II. And this explanation was declared by the secretary of state, Lord Halifax, to be perfectly agreeable to the royal construction. According to this interpretation, no one could be named Regent, except the queen, or some one sprung from George II. Her Royal Highness the Princess Dowager of Wales was therefore not included. This omission was regarded by the House of Commons as an indignity to her royal highness; and a motion was made by a relation of Lord Bute, that her name should be inserted next after the queen's. In this amended state, the bill being remitted to the peers, passed into a law.

The ministry were never popular, and by this late

neglect, they were commonly supposed to have lost the confidence of the crown. In fact, his majesty, in concurrence with the Earl of Bute, formed the resolution of dismissing them; and overtures for the formation of a new ministry were accordingly made, through the medium of the Duke of Cumberland, to Mr. Pitt and his friends. These overtures however failed of effect; and the king was reluctantly obliged to submit, for some time longer, to the dictation of men who had lost, because they did not deserve, his confidence.

The Duke of Bedford is said to have acted, upon this occasion, in a singularly unbecoming manner towards his sovereign. "He demanded," says Junius, "an audience of the --> reproached him in plain terms with duplicity, baseness, falsehood, treachery, and hypocrisy; repeatedly gave him the lie, and left him in strong convulsions."

It is certain that ministers, flushed with the temporary triumph they had gained, by the failure of this attempt to displace them, proceeded to exact concessions from their sovereign, which were not only insulting to his personal feelings, but in some degree derogatory to his honour. Among other sacrifices, they obliged him to dismiss Mr. Stuart M'Kenzie, Lord Bute's brother, from the office of Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland, although, when the office was bestowed on him, he had received the royal assurance that he was to enjoy it for life.

On Lord Chatham's return to power, shortly afterwards, his lordship, sympathizing with the offended feelings and dignity of his sovereign, resolved to make reparation, by restoring Mr. M'Kenzie to his office. This act was immediately construed, by the illiberal

spirit of party, into a coalition with the favourite ; though nothing could be more in the true spirit of this honourable man, whose zeal was ever ready to kindle at the slightest appearance of injustice, or more striking illustrative of that royal reverence for his sovereign, which, along with all his love of liberty, was conspicuous in Lord Chatham.

THE PERUQUIERS' PETITION.

In the month of February, 1765, the Peruke Makers presented a petition to the king, stating their distressed condition, occasioned by so many people wearing their own hair, and employing foreigners to cut and dress it; or when they employ natives, obliging them to work on the Lord's day, to the neglect of their duty to God, &c. They therefore humbly beseeched his majesty, that he would be pleased to grant them relief; submitting to his majesty's goodness and wisdom, whether his own example was not the only means of rescuing them from their distresses, as far as it occasioned so many people wearing their own hair. His majesty was graciously pleased to receive the petition, and to return for answer, 66 'That he held nothing dearer to his heart than the happiness of his people, and that they may be assured, he should at all times use his endeavours to promote their welfare."

Several of the adventurous barbers who attended on this occasion, gave such offence by their inconsistency in wearing their own hair, that it was cut off by the mob on their return.

His majesty was not unmindful of the promise he

gave to the fraternity; at least if we may judge from some of his public exhibitions, on which he appears to have sacrificed every thing like personal vanity to his reverence for wigs. On one occasion in the House of Lords, and on another at the Installation of the Knights of the Garter at Windsor, he wore a powdered dress wig of George the Second's, which was amazingly out of harmony with the rest of his costume. It resembled a huge spherical mass of snow, descending between the shoulders in the form of an inverted cone; and the appearance was not improved by the pressure of a heavy cap and plume. The Court ladies feelingly regretted the absence of the black rosette and flowing curls, which are always to be seen in portraits of modern robed sovereigns and knights.

DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.

The death of the Duke, the great Duke (as he is called) of Cumberland, 31st of October, 1765, was deplored by the country as a general misfortune. In politics, his royal highness was a firm supporter of those constitutional principles which had raised his family to the throne. His patriotism was sincere. In military fame, he was one of those commanders, to whose abilities fortune seemed not to have done justice, having seldom favoured him with victory; yet among judges of military merit he was held in high esteem, his talents having been conspicuous in many instances when he had to combat with superior numbers, and to save himself in perilous circumstances.

His royal highness incurred much odium for what

has been styled his inhuman conduct to the Scotch rebels after the battle of Culloden; and a historian of no mean repute, Lord Lyttleton, coincides in this particular with the voice of the public. From some facts, however, subsequently communicated to the public, by a gentleman who was not only sincerely devoted to the House of Stuart, but actually fought under Prince Charles's standard, it would seem that the odium was not very well founded. We are told, for instance, that after the battle of Culloden, some of the officers in the duke's army were railing very severely against Princes Charles, whom they termed the Pretender, and that the duke on over hearing the discourse, instantly rebuked the officers most sharply, observing to them they were reviling one who, though his enemy, was a gentleman and a relation. And we are farther assured, that every man of Prince Charles's army who happened to fall into the duke's own hands, during the rebellion, and after the battle of Culloden, was treated not only with humanity, but with tenderness.

These statements, though much at variance with the popular belief, especially in the northern parts of the island, are perfectly in accordance with the conduct of the duke on other occasions, of which many highly honourable traits are extant.

When marching north, 1745, he halted two days at Penrith in Cumberland. While there, an orphan boy at school, whose father had been in the royal household, applied for protection to his royal highness, who gave him an audience, and thus addressed him: "I remember your father well; his honour and integrity as a servant deserved esteem. The death, of the good old man was a public loss. Could I be per