IT was in this year that the separation of the Prince and the titular Princess of Wales was complete, and Florizel's heart (if he had such a thing) went back to his wife. Let us hear Lord Stourton's account of their reconciliation:

'When she thought her connection with the Prince was broken off for ever, by his second union, she was placed by him in difficulties from the same earnest and almost desperate pursuit, as she had been exposed to during the first interval of his attachment. Numbers of the Royal Family, both male and female, urged a reconciliation, even upon a principle of duty.

'However, as she was, by his marriage with Queen Caroline, placed in a situation of much difficulty, involving her own conscience, and making it doubtful whether public scandal might not interfere with her own engagements, she determined to resort to the highest authorities of her own Church upon a case of such extraordinary intricacy. The Rev. Mr. Nassau, one of the chaplains of Warwick Street Chapel, was, therefore, selected to go to Rome and lay the case before that tribunal, upon the express understanding that, if the answer should be favourable, she would again join the Prince; if otherwise, she was determined to abandon the country. In the meantime, whilst the negotiation was pending, she obtained a promise from his Royal Highness that he would not follow her into her retreat in Wales, where she went to a small bathing place. The reply from Rome, in a Brief, which, in a moment of panic, she destroyed, fearful of the consequences during Mr. Percival's administration, was favourable to the wishes of the Prince; and, faithful to her own determination to act, as much as possible, in the face of the public, she resisted all importunities to meet him clandestinely. The day on which she joined him again at her own house, was the same on which she gave a public breakfast to the whole town of London, and to which he was invited.

'She told me, she hardly knew how she could summon resolution to pass that severe ordeal, but she thanked God she had the courage to do so. The next eight years were, she said, the happiest of her connection with the Prince. She used to say that they were extremely poor, but as merry as crickets; and, as a proof of their poverty, she told me that once, on their returning to Brighton from London, they mustered their common means, and could not raise £5 between them. Upon this, or some such occasion, she related to me, that an old and faithful servant endeavoured to force them to accept £60, which he said he had accumulated in the service of the best of Masters and Mistresses. She added, however, that even this period, the happiest of their lives, was much embittered by the numerous political difficulties which frequently surrounded the Prince.'

We can scarcely, nowadays, when the judicial separation of man and wife is an everyday occurrence, and divorce is rendered as easy as possible, properly conceive Mrs. Fitzherbert's feelings in this matter of reconciliation. We must, however, remember that she was a strict Catholic, that her Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, except by death, and that she invoked and followed the highest ecclesiastical authorities for guidance. Let us hear a modern opinion of her conduct. It occurs in the Dublin Review of October, 1854, p. 21, in a criticism of 'Lord Holland's Memoirs':

'The doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding marriage is plain and simple. She teaches that the marriage contract itself, which is perfected by the words, "I take thee for my wife," on the part of the man, and "I take thee for my husband," on the part of the woman, or by any other words, or signs, by which the contracting parties manifest their intention of taking each other for man and wife, is a sacrament. Protestants are apt to fall into the mistake that it is the priest who administers the sacrament to the wedded pair. He does no such thing. As far as the validity of the contract and of the sacrament is concerned, even when the contracting parties are both Catholics, the priest need not utter a word. His presence is only necessary as a witness to the contract between the parties. Up to the time of the Council of Trent, the presence of a priest was not necessary for the validity of either the contract, or the sacrament. Nor was it by any means to confer the sacrament that the Council enacted a law requiring his presence. The law was made in consequence of the abuses which arose from clandestine marriages, because an immoral person who had married without witnesses, could, afterwards, deny the existence of the contract, and wed another publicly, and in the face of the Church. To prevent this abuse, the Council of Trent enacted that the parish priest of one of the contracting parties, or some other priest deputed by him, and two other witnesses should, for the future (in posterum), be present (prÆsente parocho) at the marriage contract. The presence of the two other witnesses is required exactly in the same way as that of the parish priest. The law is simply that marriage should be contracted in the presence of three witnesses, one of whom should, necessarily, be the parish priest.

'Nor was this law made, at once, obligatory, even on Catholics. By an ordinance of the Council, it was not to have effect in any parish until thirty days after it had been published there. This allowed a large discretion to each bishop with regard to the time of its publication in his diocese, and, in fact, it is not long since it has been introduced into England.

'But it does not, and never did apply to any marriage in these countries, where one of the parties is not a Catholic. Neither in such marriages, which are called mixed, nor in those contracted between parties, neither of whom belong to the Catholic Church, is the presence of any priest required for the validity of either the contract, or sacrament. It is not even necessary that the contracting parties should know that marriage is a sacrament. The sacrament exists wherever Christians marry as Christ intended; and, if they be properly disposed, they will receive grace to live happily together, and to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.

'Mrs. Fitzherbert's marriage was, therefore, perfectly valid, both as a contract and as a sacrament, in the eyes of the whole Catholic Church, and to imagine that she alone, of all those who professed the same faith, should look upon it as invalid, is monstrously absurd. Neither the Pope, nor the whole Church could have annulled it, nor allowed her to marry another.

'But it was illegal! Why, so was the whole Catholic religion, at the same period. It was, not very long ago, unlawful to celebrate Mass, but the sacrifice was not, therefore, invalidly offered. To say that Mrs. Fitzherbert considered the marriage ceremony to be nonsense, because it was illegal, at the time when the penal code against Catholics—and especially that part of it which regarded matrimony—was in full operation, is about as reasonable, as to prove that she did not believe in transubstantiation, because the law declared it to be damnable and idolatrous.'

For the next two or three years we hear little about the Prince, the newspapers leaving his doings unrecorded. We learn (May 15, 1797) that 'On last Thursday evening, the Prince of Wales, accompanied by a single gentleman, arrived at his Pavilion at Brighton. His Royal Highness, the next day, reviewed the Monmouth and Brecon Militia, on the Downs, near the above place. To-day, we hear, the Prince leaves Brighton, having come there only for a few days, by the advice of Dr. Warren, for the benefit of the sea air. His Royal Highness has lost much of his corpulence since he was last at Brighton.'

He went again, on July 24, to be present at the races, and it is recorded that, on October 23, 'The Prince of Wales amused himself with a day's shooting at Petworth, on an invitation from the Earl of Egremont. The next day, his Royal Highness being on his way to London, with post horses, very narrowly escaped being overturned, about a mile and a half on the other side of Cuckfield, where the horses, by some means, took the carriage off the main road to the side of a bank, and with an inclination that threatened its overturn, for the space of many yards, but fortunately, and owing to the lowness of the carriage, it was kept upon its wheels.'

He was present at the races on August 1, 2, and 3, 1798, and a newspaper remarks that 'The change of society and manners which has taken place at the Pavilion, gives the most heartfelt satisfaction to every lover of his country; it is, now, every way worthy of the Heir apparent of the British Empire.'

In 1799 we hear of him being at Brighton, both in July and October. In 1800 he was at the races in August, when his horse Knowsley won a race. In the 'Brighton New Guide,' fourth edition, there is a good view of the Pavilion as it was in 1800, with the following text:

'Adjoining to Marlborough House stands the Marine Pavilion, built by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in the year 1784.

'This handsome structure extends upwards of 200 feet in front, towards the Steyne; the centre is a circular building, with a lofty dome, supported by pillars; on each side are two elegant rooms on the ground floor, with bed chambers over them: in addition to these, in the spring of 1802, two wings were added, which gives a light, airy appearance to the building; gravel walks, grass plats, and plantations towards the Steyne, add a great degree of elegance to the whole.

'The front, towards the street, forms a square, with a handsome colonnade in the middle, supported by columns; in the wings are commodious apartments for his Royal Highness's suite; in the court is the figure of a negro supporting a dial, executed in a superior style of beautiful sculpture.'

The Prince was at Brighton in 1801. Vide the following extract from a newspaper:

'Rejoicings for Peace. Oct. 14.—On Monday, the joyful tidings of Peace were celebrated here; the bells rang from six in the morning till twelve at night; never was the satisfaction of the people more fully displayed. Young and old wore ribbons emblematic of the occasion—Peace and Plenty! The sea fencibles fired a feu de joie, marched from thence to the Prince's house, and gave him three loud huzzas: with that liberality which has ever marked our Royal guest, he ordered them two hogsheads of beer. Brilliant illuminations took place in the evening; the whole town appeared in a blaze. The most distinguished were those of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, flambeaux burning round his house, and every window lighted. This happy day closed with a ball and supper at the Castle, attended by near five hundred visitors; at one o'clock the room was opened with the most sumptuous entertainment; every delicacy that could be procured.'

The Prince was in Brighton in 1802, and in the latter part of the year hunted almost daily with his harriers, and had concerts at the Pavilion two or three times a week. He left it for the season on December 27.

A newspaper cutting tells us that 'The charitable donations and willing assistance which Mrs. Fitzherbert has bestowed, and continues to bestow on the unfortunate individuals of this place, have justly endeared her to the inhabitants of every description.'

But the miserable caricaturist, who knew nothing of her noble nature, depicts her in a scurrilous drawing (October 21, 1802), entitled 'A Brighton Breakfast, or Morning Comforts.' Mrs. Fitzherbert and Lady Lade are at breakfast; Mrs. Fitzherbert is pouring Hollands into a huge tumbler labelled 'Comfort,' and says, 'Won't you take another Comforter? We must make haste, I expect Noodle here presently.' Lady Lade, who takes Brandy, says, 'I think your Comforters are bigger than my John's.'

The next day brought out another satirical print, indicative of the Prince's intimacy with the Lades. It is called 'Birds of a Feather Flock Together; Diversions of Brighton.' Sir John Lade and the Prince are on the box of an open carriage, in which are seated Mrs. Fitzherbert and a lady (Miss Snow). Sir John is lashing one of the four horses, and says to the Prince, 'There, B——t it, don't you see? that's the Cut.' Miss Snow observes to Mrs. Fitzherbert, 'Did Noodle bring your physic this morning?' To which she replies, 'Oh, yes, he calls regularly every morning.'

We read in the Sussex Weekly Advertiser (February 28, 1803) that 'The Prince's Pavilion at Brighton is undergoing other considerable alterations and improvement, under the direction of Mr. Holland, the architect; and is ordered to be got ready for the residence of his Royal Highness, at an early part of the ensuing season.'

On October 14, 1800, just before Weltje died, the Prince took from him a lease of the Pavilion for ninety-nine years at a rent, annually, of £1,150, and on April 18, 1803, he went to Brighton to see how the alterations were getting on. 'His Royal Highness slept at the house, late Weltje's, adjoining the Pavilion, the repairs and alterations of which are not yet completed. The Prince, after minutely inspecting the works going on, returned to town on Thursday.'

In this extravagance he was somewhat justified, for on February 16 the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought before the House of Commons the following message from the King:

'George R.

'His Majesty having taken into consideration the period which has elapsed since the adoption of those arrangements which were deemed, by the wisdom of Parliament, to be necessary for the discharge of the incumbrances of the Prince of Wales; and, having adverted to the progress which has been made in carrying them into effect, recommends the present situation of the Prince to the attention of this House.

'Notwithstanding the reluctance and regret which his Majesty must feel in suggesting any addition to the burthens of his people, he is induced to resort, in this instance, to the experienced liberality and attachment of his faithful Commons, in the persuasion that they will be disposed to take such measures, as may be calculated to promote the comfort, and support the dignity of so distinguished a branch of his Royal Family.'

On February 23 the House went into Committee to consider the King's message; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Addington) pointed out that on the 5th of the previous January £563,895 had been paid off the Prince's debt of £650,000, and that the whole would be discharged in July, 1806. He moved 'That his Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum, or sums of money, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, not exceeding, in the whole, the sum of Sixty thousand pounds; to take place, and be computed from the 5th day of January, 1803, and to continue until the 5th day of July, 1806, towards providing for the better support of the station and dignity of his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales.' This resolution was agreed to.

In September, 1803, the royal stables, now the Dome, were commenced, and that the Prince was there in October we have evidence in the following newspaper cutting:

'Oct. 2.—The Prince of Wales, at the conclusion of the Concert at the Pavilion, some time after midnight, on Thursday last, addressing himself to Colonel Leigh, expressed an anxious desire to know in how short a time his regiment of dragoons could be under arms, and ready to face the enemy, should necessity require their exertions in the night. The Colonel immediately proposed, as the best method of satisfying his Royal Highness, instantly to ride to, and order an alarm to be sounded at the barracks; and, afterwards, to return, and give his Royal Highness a correct account of the conduct of his troops. This measure being approved by the Prince, the Colonel's horse was soon brought to the door, and he set off, with all possible speed to see it carried into effect.

'On reaching the advanced guard at the entrance of the barracks, the Colonel commanded a black trumpeter on duty, to sound to arms. The man, in obedience to the mandate, raised the trumpet to his lips; but the surprise of the moment so greatly overpowered him, that he wanted breath to put it in execution. An English trumpeter, who overheard the order, as he lay in bed, in an instant arose, dashed open the window of his room, and without waiting for further advice, put the bugle to his mouth, gave the proper signal, and the troops, in every part, were, in an instant, in motion. The greater part of the soldiers had been in bed many hours; the whole of them were properly accoutred, and on their horses, together with the flying artillery, in readiness to depart, in time sufficient to have reached Brighton within 15 minutes after the bugle gave the alarm. The barracks are situated something better than a mile and a half to the north of the town.'

The following excerpt from the Annual Register shows the diversions of Brighton:

'Aug. 20, 1803.—A whimsical exhibition took place on the race ground at Brighton. Captain Otto, of the Sussex Militia, booted, and mounted by a grenadier of 18 stone weight, was matched to run 50 yards, against a poney, carrying a feather, to run 150; but Capt. Otto's rider tumbled over his neck, which he was very near cracking; and, consequently, he lost the bet. The next match was, the same gentleman, mounted by the same grenadier, to run 50 yards, against a noble lord, carrying a feather, who was to run 100. He was considerably distanced by the latter.'

The following is taken from the Times of September 7, 1804:

'Brighton Anecdote.—Some ill timed pleasantry was played off, a few days ago, at Brighton, on a respectable Law Officer and his wife, who have made a summer excursion there. An invitation, couched in due form, and bearing all the marks of authenticity, was sent to them, desiring their company at the Pavilion in the evening. The Gentleman and Lady, justly proud of the distinguished honour thus conferred on them, they knew not how, attended at the hour appointed, and were ushered into the Saloon, in which were many persons of distinction, to whom they were wholly unknown. Some embarrassment necessarily ensued, but it was increased to a ten fold degree, when they were announced to the illustrious Master of the house, who had no recollection either of his guests, or the invitation in his name; an explanation ensued, and his Royal Highness, with all that urbanity that distinguishes him as the most finished Gentleman in Europe, was pleased to declare "that he felt himself much indebted to the ingenious person, who (by forging his invitation, in order, perhaps, to sport with their feelings) had afforded him the pleasure of their society and acquaintance, however unexpected; and that he was perfectly happy in the opportunity of receiving them." His Royal Highness conducted himself towards them during the whole of the evening with the most liberal and marked attention, and thus converted a rencontre, which was produced by the most malignant motives, into a source of honour and perfect satisfaction.'

Of the Prince's connection with Brighton in 1804 we have very little trace. He was averse to having his doings chronicled, probably because they were immediately pictorially satirized; but we have a very fine one by Gillray, called The Reconciliation, published on November 20, 1804.

The Prince and the King had been at daggers drawn, principally as to the guardianship of the little Princess Charlotte. A peace was temporarily patched up between them, and the King wrote on November 7 to the Chancellor that he was ready to receive the Prince. The letter being forwarded to the latter, he at once replied:

'Brighton,
'Nov. 8, 1804.

'The Prince of Wales, without delay, acknowledges the receipt of the Chancellor's letter; and will, in consequence of the gracious intention signified from his Majesty, be in London to-morrow evening, with Lord Moira, who has just arrived at Brighthelmstone. The Earl of Moira is authorised by the Prince to wait upon the Chancellor at any hour on Saturday morning, that his lordship may please to appoint.'

The meeting between father and son took place on November 12, and next day the King wrote to the Princess of Wales:

'Windsor Castle,
'Nov. 13, 1804.

'My dearest Daughter in Law, and Niece,

'Yesterday, I and the rest of the family had an interview with the Prince of Wales, at Kew. Care was taken on all sides to avoid all subjects of altercation, or explanation, consequently, the conversation was neither instructive, nor entertaining; but it leaves the Prince of Wales in a situation to show whether his desire to return to the family, is only verbal, or real, which time, alone, can prove. I am not idle in my endeavours to make inquiries that may enable me to communicate some plan for the advantage of the dear child. You and I, with so much reason, must interest ourselves; and its effecting my having the happiness of living more with you, is no small incentive to my forming some ideas on the subject, but you may depend on their not being decided upon, without your thorough and cordial concurrence; for your authority as a mother, it is my object to support.

'Believe me, at all times,

'My dearest daughter and niece,

'Your most affectionate Father in Law and Uncle,

'George R.'

Nothing really came of this so-called 'Reconciliation,' and soon father and son were as much estranged as ever. Gillray gives us a picture of the Prodigal Son's return. 'And he arose and came to his Father; and his Father saw him, and had compassion and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.' The Prince of Wales is in tatters, with his empty pockets turned inside out, his stockings slipping down, and his shoes down at heel. Lord Moira and Pitt stand by, looking on, and Queen Charlotte, with her arms outspread, and two of the Princesses, are beaming with delight.