1685; by Ernest Augustus, fifth brother of George I., who was created Duke of York and Albany in 1716, and died without issue in 1728; and by Edward Augustus, second son of Frederick, prince of Wales, and brother of George III., who was created Duke of York and Albany in 1760, and died without issue in 1767. The last wearer of this celebrated but ill-omened title was—
Frederick, second son of George III. and Queen Charlotte, who was born on the 16th of August, 1763. Seven months after his birth he was nominated by his father, as elector of Hanover and duke of Lunenburg, to the bishopric of Osnaburg, one of those secular dignities, with an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which are peculiar to Germany. He was created a knight of the bath in 1767, and received the garter in 1772 along with two of his brothers, the prince of Wales and Prince Ernest Augustus. From his earliest years his royal highness was destined by his father for the military profession, and at the age of seventeen he was appointed by brevet a colonel in the British army. A few weeks later (November, 1780) he was sent to the continent to study the art of war under the care of General Grenville, and took up his residence at Hanover, whence he made excursions to various parts of Germany. The efforts of his military tutor, however, proved utterly unavailing to induce his royal highness to acquire a knowledge of his profession. Though personally brave, he was destitute alike of military talent and habits of business, was incurably indolent, and much addicted to gambling and drinking. In 1784 he was created Duke of York and Albany in Great Britain, and Earl of Ulster in Ireland, and three years later (27th November, 1787) took his seat in the house of lords. He took part in the discussions on the famous regency question in December, 1788, and acting as the organ of the prince of Wales, displayed more of fraternal affection than of filial reverence in the course which he followed. In 1791 the duke of York married the princess royal of Prussia, and received from parliament a handsome addition to his income, which altogether amounted to £37,000 a year, besides his official salary, but proved wholly insufficient to keep him out of debt. In 1793, in spite of his inexperience and utter want of military talent, he was appointed to the command of the British contingent in the allied army which, under the prince of Saxe-Coburg, was sent to defend Holland against the invasion of the French. The first military operations undertaken by the allies were crowned with success. The invaders were driven out of Flanders, and Valenciennes, the principal bulwark of the northern frontier of France, was besieged and taken by the British troops. The French were panic-stricken and apparently helpless, and it is not improbable that if the allied army had marched at once upon Paris, the republican government would have been overturned, and the war terminated. But the allied generals were utterly unfit for their situation, and by their indecision and the slowness of their movements lost the precious opportunity, which never returned. The prince of Coburg wasted his time in laying siege to Quesnay and Maubege, while the duke of York with the British, Hanoverian, and Hessian troops, assisted by a body of Austrians, invested Dunkirk. The French government had meanwhile recovered from their terror, and called out a levy en masse of the nation. Dunkirk, one of the strongest towns on the continent, made an obstinate defence; and after a succession of severe and sanguinary actions, the duke of York was under the necessity of raising the siege, and retreating to the frontiers of West Flanders. The campaign of 1794 opened with a succession of fierce encounters, in which the advantage rested with the allies. A corps of thirty thousand men under General Chapay was defeated by the British near Troixville (26th April), and their leader was taken prisoner. Four days later Landrecies surrendered; but the tide of victory now turned. The French army under Pichegru defeated the allies near Tournay on the 14th of May, and on the 18th the duke of York's division was attacked and completely routed. The duke himself narrowly escaped falling into the enemy's hands, and it was only by the extraordinary efforts of Generals Abercromby and Fox that the troops were saved from total destruction. At this juncture an officer who possessed the confidence of Mr. Pitt, wrote to the prime minister from the British head-quarters a frank account of the critical state of the army, and the incapacity of its commander. Upon the receipt of this grave intelligence the duke was immediately recalled. The king gave a reluctant consent to this step, but on the return of his royal highness his majesty immediately created him a field-marshal, and appointed him commander-in-chief of all the forces of the United Kingdom. On receiving intelligence of this extraordinary appointment, Lord Cornwallis bitterly remarked in a confidential letter— "Whether we shall get any good by this, God only knows, but I think things cannot change for the worse at the horse guards. If the French land, and that they will land I am certain, I would not like to trust the new field-marshal with the defence of Culford" (his lordship's country seat). The court parasites, however, held up the duke to the nation as a general thoroughly versant in military affairs, personally acquainted with the officers, and therefore well fitted to select the most capable men in the service, and everyway qualified to carry vigorously into effect the necessary reforms in the British army. The history of the subsequent operations of our forces both in Ireland and on the continent, afford a melancholy proof of the absurdity of these panegyrics, and of the fatal influence of court patronage. In 1799 the duke of York once more returned to active service, and was actually permitted to assume the command of the expedition to Holland, which had for its object the expulsion of the French from that country. As might have been expected, the incapacity and scandalous negligence of the duke and the other allied generals, entailed the most dreadful sufferings on these troops. Wellington said it had always been a marvel to him how any of them escaped. At length, after several bloody battles fought with doubtful success, the duke in less than four weeks found it necessary to treat with the enemy. After some discussion the French agreed to permit the re-embarkation of the allied army, on condition that they should give up all the artillery they had taken, and restore eight thousand French and Batavian prisoners. On these terms, as Mr. Tierney remarked, "a British king's son commanding forty-one thousand men capitulated to a French general who had only thirty thousand," and the duke, "fortunately for Britain, sheathed his sword to draw it no more on the field of battle." The administration of his royal highness at the horse guards, was not greatly superior to his services in the field. The most important posts in the army were intrusted, not to able and experienced officers, but to ignorant and incapable court favourites like Sir David Dundas, Sir Harry Burrard, Sir Hew Dalrymple, and Lord Chatham, who by their stupidity and gross mismanagement wasted the blood and treasure of the country, and brought disgrace on the British arms. In 1809 the revelations arising out of the connection of his royal highness with the notorious Mrs. Clarke, rendered it impossible any longer to conceal from the public his weakness and profligacy, and the corrupt practices which he had connived at in the disposal of commissions. He was in consequence obliged to resign his office, and was succeeded by Sir David Dundas, one of the most incapable general officers in the service—"a man without talents," says Lord Cornwallis, "and who can neither write nor talk intelligibly." The object of this discreditable appointment was, according to the duke of Wellington, the expectation that "the duke of York would be able to resume his situation by the time Sir David was quite superannuated, and it might not be so easy to get a younger or a better man out of office at so early a period." And so it proved. On the establishment of the regency, the prince of Wales, who was as anxious as his father had been to retain the control of the army in the hands of the court, reappointed his brother to the office of commander-in-chief, which he continued to hold till his death, 5th January, 1827. His royal highness was a man of kindly feelings; and it is due to his memory to say, that he took a warm interest in the welfare of the soldiers, and introduced various important improvements in the administration of military affairs. But it is impossible now to reflect without deep shame and pain on the evil effects which flowed from intrusting the important office of commander-in-chief of the British army to a man so weak, ignorant, facile, and profligate. He died deeply involved in debt, occasioned by his dissolute habits, and especially by his passion for gambling, and many of his unfortunate creditors were utterly ruined. The duke left no issue by his duchess, who died in 1820, and his titles expired with him.—J. T.
YORKE, Charles, Lord Morden, a distinguished English lawyer, was the second son of Lord-chancellor Hardwicke. He was born at his father's house in Great Ormond Street, London, January 10, 1723, and was sent early in life to a private school at Hackney. At the age of seventeen he was removed to Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he applied himself ardently to study, under the direction of Dr. Birch. His brother was an undergraduate
