., &c. This he neither
could nor would have done had he been aware of the existence of his
brother's son, who had a prior claim to his own. Moreover, when the
Princess Louisa left her husband, he exerted himself to the utmost of
his ability to serve her; carried her to Rome; and succeeded in
procuring for her a suitable establishment from his brother. Surely,
in return for his great services, she would have informed him of the
existence of her son, if any such son had ever been born! When the
pretender's health began to give way Cardinal York was among the first
to hasten to his assistance, and, discarding all previous
disagreements, renewed his friendship with him, and persuaded him to
make his home in Rome for the last two years of his life. Yet Prince
Charles in his old age, and with death before his eyes, never revealed
the secret of St. Rosalie to his brother, but permitted him to assume a
title to which he had not the shadow of a claim. In his will also,
Cardinal York betrays his ignorance of any heir of his brother, and
bequeaths his possessions to the missionary funds of the Romish
Church. Dr. Beaton alone seems to have been worthy of trust.

As far as Admiral Allen is concerned, it is not only unproven that he
was a Tory or a Jacobite, but it is almost certainly shown that he was
a Whig, and would have been a very unlikely person to be entrusted
either with the secrets, or the heir, of Prince Charlie. Had Charles
Edward been in a situation to confide so delicate a trust to any one,
it is impossible to conceive that he would have selected any other
than one of his staunchest adherents; yet John and Charles Hay Allen
ask the public to believe that the charge was entrusted to one whose
political relations seem to have been with the opposite party. They
declare that the "Red Eagle" was aware of his real parentage prior to
1790; yet in the notice of Thomas Allen's marriage, which occurred two
years later, he is expressly described as the son of Admiral Allen,
and in the admiral's will he is distinctly mentioned as his son. As
the reviewer, who has been quoted so freely, remarks: "What
conceivable motive could induce the officer entrusted by Charles
Edward with the care of the only hope of the House of Stuart to leave
in his will, and that will, too, executed in the year of his death, a
flat denial of the royal birth of his illustrious ward? The fact is
utterly irreconcilable with the existence of such a secret, and