when he was asked to form a Government.  “Does Mr. Pitt,” said he, “not know that Mr. Fox was of all persons most offensive to him?” “Had not Fox always cheered the popular Government of France, and had he not always advocated peace with bloodstained rebels?  And be it remembered the indecorous language he had frequently used against his sovereign, and consider his influence over the Prince of Wales.  Bring whom you like, Mr. Pitt, but Fox never.”

George III, King by the Grace of God, relented somewhat in his dislike of Fox before the latter died, and his wayward son, the Prince of Wales, said “that his father was well pleased with Mr. Fox in all their dealings after he came into office.”  It is an amazing form of intelligence that commits a nation to join in a war against another for having brought about a revolution and for creating their first soldier-statesman an “Emperor,” and ranks him and his compatriots as “bloodstained rebels.”  To class Napoleon as a bloodstained rebel and to put him on a level with the Robespierres and the Dantons is an historic outrage of the truth.  He had nothing whatever to do with bringing about the Revolution, though his services saved it, and out of the terrible tumult and wreck superhumanly re-created France and made her the envy of the modern world.  The great defender of the Rights of Kings and of the colossal European fabric was appealed to by the man whom George III associated with the “bloodstained rebels” to come to some common understanding so that the shedding of blood might cease, but that robust advocate of peace (!) contemptuously ignored his appeals to negotiate.  In 1805 he was raised to the Imperial dignity, and one of his first acts was to write with his own hand that famous letter which I have previously quoted, pleading, with majestic dignity, for the King of England, in the name of humanity, to co-operate with him in a way that will bring about friendly relations between the two Governments and the spilling of blood to an end.  The King “by the Grace of God” and his horde of bloodsucking, incompetent ministers insulted the French nation and the great captain who ruled over its destinies by sending through Lord Mulgrave an insolent, hypocritical reply to the French ministers.

The rage of war continued for another decade.  If George III yearned for peace as he and his ministers pretended, why did the King not write a courteous autograph letter back to Napoleon, even though he regarded him as an inferior and a mere military adventurer?  The nation had to pay a heavy toll in blood and money in order that the assumptions and dignity of this insensate monarch might be maintained, whose abhorrence of “bloodstained rebels” did not prevent him and his equally insensate advisers from plunging the American colonists into a bloody rebellion, which ended so gloriously for them and so disastrously for the motherland.  They had asked for reforms that were palpably reasonable and necessary, and received insulting replies to their courteous demands, which compelled them to take up arms against the King of England, with a vow that they would not sheathe the sword until they had won complete independence from the arrogant autocracy that had driven them to war.