Produced by Cathy Maxam, Heather Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
FARMER GEORGE
[Illustration: _From a print_ (_circa 1812_) _in the British Museum_
GEORGE THE THIRD]
FARMER GEORGE
BY
LEWIS MELVILLE
_Author of_ "_The First Gentleman of Europe_,"
"_The Life of William Makepeace Thackeray_,"
_&c., &c._
WITH FIFTY-THREE PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN AND SONS, LTD.
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E. C.
[Illustration]
1907
PRINTED BY
SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.
BATH.
(2002)
_To_
THOMAS SECCOMBE
_To whom the Author is indebted for
many valuable suggestions_
CONTENTS
VOL. I
CHAP. PAGE
INTRODUCTION ix
I. FREDERICK, PRINCE OF WALES 1
II. BOYHOOD OF GEORGE III 33
III. THE PRINCE COMES OF AGE 62
IV. THE NEW KING 71
V. "THE FAIR QUAKER" 86
VI. LADY SARAH LENNOX AND GEORGE III 105
VII. THE ROYAL MARRIAGE 120
VIII. THE RISE AND FALL OF "THE FAVOURITE" 136
IX. THE COURT OF GEORGE III 167
X. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE KING AND QUEEN 202
XI. "NO. XLV" 235
XII. THE KING UNDER GRENVILLE 269
ILLUSTRATIONS
VOL. I
PAGE
GEORGE III _frontispiece_
FREDERICK, PRINCE OF WALES _facing_ 5
THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES, MISS VANE
AND HER SON " 11
CAROLINE, CONSORT OF GEORGE II " 15
GEORGE II " 15
PRINCE GEORGE OF WALES, PRINCE EDWARD OF
WALES, AND DR. AYSCOUGH " 35
AUGUSTA, PRINCESS DOWAGER OF WALES " 41
LEICESTER HOUSE " 45
GEORGE, PRINCE OF WALES " 55
GEORGE III " 62
GEORGE III IN HIS CORONATION ROBES " 71
"THE BUTTON MAKER" " 75
MISS AXFORD (HANNAH LIGHTFOOT) " 86
LADY SARAH LENNOX SACRIFICING TO THE MUSES " 105
QUEEN CHARLOTTE " 120
JOHN, EARL OF BUTE " 136
WINDSOR CASTLE " 167
"THE KITCHEN METAMORPHOZ'D" " 178
"LEARNING TO MAKE APPLE DUMPLINGS" " 190
THE KING RELIEVING PRISONERS IN DORCHESTER
GAOL " 196
"SUMMER AMUSEMENTS AT FARMER GEORGE'S" " 198
BUCKINGHAM HOUSE " 202
"THE CONSTANT COUPLE" " 220
KEW PALACE " 223
JOHN WILKES " 235
"THE BRUISER" (CHARLES CHURCHILL) " 243
THE KING'S LIFE ATTEMPTED " 258
"THE RECONCILIATION" " 268
THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE GRENVILLE " 270
FARMER GEORGE
Vol. I
INTRODUCTION
This work is an attempt to portray the character of George III and to
present him alike in his private life and in his Court. It is,
therefore, not essential to the scheme of this book to treat of the
political history of the reign, but it is impossible entirely to ignore
it, since the King was so frequently instrumental in moulding it.[1]
Only those events in which he took a leading part have been introduced,
and consequently these volumes contain no account of Irish and Indian
affairs, in which, apart from the Catholic Emancipation and East India
Bills, the King did not actively interest himself.
[1] "So closely is the domestic history of George the Third connected
with the political events of his reign, as to render it almost
impossible to disassociate the one from the other. Fortunately, however,
in the war of party and in the animated struggle for ascendency which he
so long carried on with the great Whig aristocracy, there is ample and
stirring interest."--J. H. Jesse.
This difficulty was not met with by the author when writing a book on
the life and times of George IV,[2] because that Prince had little to do
with politics. It is true that he threw his influence into the scale of
the Opposition as soon as, or even before, he came of age, but this was
for strictly personal reasons. Fox and Sheridan were the intimates of
the later years of his minority, and his association with them gave him
the pleasure of angering his father: it was his protest against George
III for refusing him the income to which he considered himself, as
Prince of Wales, entitled. He had, however, no interest in politics, as
such, either before or after he ascended the throne; and, indeed, as
King, the only measure that interested him was the Bill for the
emancipation of the Catholics, which he opposed because resistance to it
had made his father and his brother Frederick popular.
[2] _The First Gentleman of Europe._ 2 vols. 1906.
With George III the case was very different. He came to the throne in
his twenty-third year, with his mother's advice, "Be King, George,"
ringing in his ears, and, fully determined to carry out this instruction
to the best of his ability, he was not content to reign without making
strenuous efforts to rule. "Farmer George," the nickname that has clung
to him ever since it was bestowed satirically in the early days of his
reign, has come, except by those well versed in the history of the
times, to be accepted as a tribute to his simple-mindedness and his
homely mode of living. To these it will come as a shock to learn that
"Farmer George" was a politician of duplicity so amazing that, were he
other than a sovereign, it might well be written down as
unscrupulousness. Loyalty, indeed, seems to have been foreign to his
nature: he was a born schemer. When the Duke of Newcastle was in power,
George plotted for the removal of Pitt, knowing that the resignation of
the "Great Commoner" must eventually bring about the retirement of the
Duke, and so leave Bute in possession of supreme authority. When within
a year "The Favourite" was compelled to withdraw, George, unperturbed,
appointed George Grenville Prime Minister, but finding him
unsubservient, intrigued against him, was found out, compelled to
promise to abstain from further interference against his own ministers,
broke his word again and again, and finally brought about the downfall
of Grenville, who was succeeded by the Marquis of Rockingham. Again
George employed the most unworthy means to get rid of Rockingham, and
during the debates on the repeal of the Stamp Act encouraged his
Household to vote against the Government, assuring them they should not
lose their places, indeed would rise higher in his favour, because of
their treachery to the head of the Administration of the Crown; and all
the while he was writing encouraging notes to Rockingham assuring him of
his support! This strange record of underhand intrigues has been traced
in the following pages.
George had not even the excuse of success for his treachery. It is true
that he contrived to compel the resignation of various ministers, but
his incursions into the political arena were fraught with disaster. He
forced Bute on the nation, and Bute could not venture to enter the City
except with a band of prize-fighters around his carriage to protect him!
He took an active part against Wilkes, and Wilkes became a popular hero!
He encouraged the imposition of the Stamp Act in America, and in the end
America was lost to England! Having no knowledge of men and being
ignorant of the world, he was guided at first by secret advisers, and
subsequently by his own likes and dislikes, coupled with a regard for
his dignity, that did not, however, prevent him from personally
canvassing Windsor in favour of the Court candidate when Keppel was
standing for the parliamentary representation of the town.
George III was, according to his lights, a good man--
"I grant his household abstinence; I grant
His neutral virtues, which most monarchs want;"
a kind master; a well-meaning, though unwise father; a faithful husband,
possessing
"that household virtue, most uncommon,
Of constancy to a bad, ugly woman,"
which was the more creditable as his nature was vastly susceptible. He
was pious, anxious to do his duty, and deeply attached to his country,
but believing himself always in the right, was frequently led by his
feelings into courses such as justified Byron's magnificent onslaught:--
"In the first year of Freedom's second dawn
Died George the Third; although no tyrant, one
Who shielded tyrants, till each sense withdrawn
Left him nor mental nor external sun;
A better farmer ne'er brushed dew from lawn,
A worse king never left a realm undone.
He died--but left his subjects still behind,
One half as mad, and t'other no less blind."[3]
[3] _The Vision of Judgment._
Yet, notwithstanding all the mistakes George III made, and all the
mischief he did, his reign ended in a blaze of glory. England had
survived the French Revolution without disastrous effects; and had taken
a leading part in the subjugation of Napoleon. Nelson and Wellington,
Wordsworth and Keats, Fox and Pitt, reflected their glory and the
splendour of their actions upon the country of their birth. Yet--such is
the irony of fate at its bitterest--while the world acknowledged the
supremacy of England on land, at sea, and in commerce, while a whole
people, delighted with magnificent achievements, acclaimed their ruler,
crying lustily "God save the King," George, in whose name these great
deeds were done, was but "a crazy old blind man in Windsor Tower."
"Give me a royal niche--it is my due,
The virtuousest king the realm ever knew.
I, through a decent reputable life,
Was constant to plain food and a plain wife.
Ireland I risked, and lost America;
But dined on legs of mutton every day.
My brain, perhaps, might be a feeble part;
But yet I think I had an English heart.
When all the Kings were prostrate, I alone
Stood face to face against Napoleon;
Nor ever could the ruthless Frenchman forge
A fetter for old England and old George.
I let loose flaming Nelson on his fleets;
I met his troops with Wellesley's bayonets.
Triumphant waved my flag on land and sea:
Where was the King in Europe like to me?
Monarchs exiled found shelter on my shores;
My bounty rescued Kings and Emperors.
But what boots victory by land and sea,
What boots that Kings found refuge at my knee?
I was a conqueror, but yet not proud;
And careless, even when Napoleon bow'd.
The rescued Kings came kiss my garments' hem:
The rescued Kings I never heeded them.
My guns roared triumph, but I never heard:
All England thrilled with joy, I never stirred.
What care had I of pomp, of fame, or power--
A crazy old blind man in Windsor Tower?"[4]
[4] Thackeray: _The Georges_.
CHAPTER I
FREDERICK, PRINCE OF WALES
Historians have found something to praise in George I, and the bravery
of George II on the field of battle has prejudiced many in favour of
that monarch. George III has been extolled for his domestic virtues, and
his successor held up to admiration for his courtly manners, while
William IV found favour in the eyes of many for his homely air. Of all
the Hanoverian princes in the direct line of succession to the English
throne, alone Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, lacks a solitary admirer
among modern writers.
Frederick was born at Hanover on January 6, 1707, was there educated;
and there, after the accession of George II to the English throne,
remained, a mere lad, away from parental control, compelled to hold a
daily Drawing-room, at which he received the adulation of unscrupulous
and self-seeking courtiers in a dull, vulgar, and immoral Court. George
II, remembering his behaviour to his father, was in no hurry to summon
his son to England; and Frederick might have remained the ornament of
the Hanoverian capital until his death, but that the English thought it
advisable their future king should not be allowed to grow up in
ignorance of the manners and customs of the land over which in the
ordinary course of nature he would reign. Neither the King nor the Queen
had any affection for the young man; and they were so reluctant to bring
him into prominence, or even into frequent intercourse with themselves,
that they disregarded the murmur of the people, and were inclined even
to ignore the advice of the Privy Council--when news from Hanover caused
them hurriedly to send for him.
Queen Sophia Dorothea of Prussia had years earlier said to Princess
Caroline, afterwards Queen of England, "You, Caroline, Cousin dear, have
a little Prince, Fritz, or let us call him _Fred_, since he is to be
English; little Fred, who will one day, if all go right, be King of
England. He is two years older than my little Wilhelmina, why should
they not wed, and the two chief Protestant Houses, and Nations, thereby
be united?" There was nothing to be said against this proposal, and much
in its favour. "Princess Caroline was very willing; so was Electress
Sophie, the Great-Grandmother of both the parties; so were the Georges,
Father and Grandfather of Fred: little Fred himself was highly charmed,
when told, of it; even little Wilhelmina, with her dolls, looked
pleasantly demure on the occasion. So it remained settled in fact,
though not in form; and little Fred (a florid milk-faced foolish kind of
Boy, I guess), made presents to his little Prussian Cousin, wrote bits
of love-letters to her and all along afterwards fancied himself, and at
length ardently enough became, her little lover and intended--always
rather a little fellow:--to which sentiments Wilhelmina signifies that
she responded with the due maidenly indifference, but not in an
offensive manner."[5] Then Prussian Fritz or Fred was born, and it was
further agreed that Amelia, George II's second daughter, should marry
him. George I sanctioned the arrangement, but the treaty in which it was
incorporated was never signed; and on his accession, George II, for many
reasons, was no longer desirous to carry out the marriage. Only Queen
Sophia held to her project, and Frederick, the intended husband. The
latter, doubtless incited by his father's opposition to imagine himself
in love with Wilhelmina, caused it to be intimated to Queen Sophia that,
if she would consent, he would travel secretly to Prussia and marry his
cousin. The Queen was delighted, and summoned her husband to be present
at the nuptials, but, anxious to share her joy, must needs select as a
confidant the English ambassador Dubourgay, who, of course, could not
treat such a communication as a confidence, and, to the Queen's horror,
told her he must dispatch the news to his sovereign. In vain Sophia
Dorothea pleaded for silence: it would spell ruin for it to be said that
the envoy had known of the secret and had not informed his master. The
only chance for the successful issue of the scheme was that Frederick
should arrive before his father could interfere, but this was not to be.
Colonel Launay came from England charged to return with the
heir-apparent; and so the marriage was, at least, postponed. Frederick
arrived in England on December 4, 1728, and early in the following year
Sir Charles Hotham went as minister plenipotentiary to the King of
Prussia to propose the carrying out of the double-marriage project, but
while the latter was willing to consent to the marriage of his daughter
with the Prince, he would not accept for his son the hand of Princess
Amelia, declaring that he ought to espouse the Princess Royal. Neither
party would give way, and the dislike of the potentates for each other
resulted in 1730 in a definite rupture of the negotiations.
[5] Carlyle: _History of Frederick the Great_.
In Books V, VI and VII of this work is a full account of "The Double
Marriage Project."
[Illustration:
_Photo by Emery Walker_
_From a painting by B. Dandridge_
FREDERICK, PRINCE OF WALES]
On his arrival in England Frederick[6] was received with acclamation by
the populace, but his relations with his parents were strained from the
start. The original cause of quarrel is unknown to the present
generation, and even at the time few were acquainted with it, though Sir
Robert Walpole knew it, and Lord Hervey,[7] who wrote it down, only for
his memorandum to be destroyed by his son, the Earl of Bristol.[8] It
may be assumed, however, that his father's conduct in the negotiations
for the marriage with the Princess of Prussia widened the breach. The
Prince of Wales was certainly not an agreeable person. In Hanover he had
indulged to excess in "_Wein, Weib, und Gesang_," and he was the
unfortunate possessor of a mean, paltry, despicable nature that revolted
those with whom he was brought into contact. His mother hated him--"He
is such an ass that one cannot tell what he thinks"; his sister Amelia
loathed him and wished he were dead--"He is the greatest liar that ever
spoke, and will put one arm round anybody's neck to kiss them, and then
stab them with the other if he can"; and his father detested him. "My
dear first born is the greatest ass, the greatest liar, the greatest
_canaille_ and the greatest beast in the whole world, and I heartily
wish he was out of it," so said George II, and it must be conceded that
in the main he was right.
[6] Created Duke of Gloucester, 1717; Duke of Edinburgh, 1727; Prince of
Wales, January 9, 1729.
[7] John Hervey, younger son of John Hervey, first Earl of Bristol,
styled after the death of his elder brother, Baron Hervey of Ickworth
(1696-1743).
[8] George William Hervey, second Earl of Bristol (1721-1775).
Of course, the faults were not all on the side of the Prince of Wales:
indeed, they were fairly evenly distributed between father and son. From
the first he was publicly ignored by George II. "Whenever the Prince was
in the room with the King it put one in mind of stories that one has
heard of ghosts that appear to part of the company, and were invisible
to the rest; and in this manner wherever the Prince stood, though the
King passed him ever so often, or ever so near, it always seems as if
the King thought the Prince filled a void of space."[9] The father took
advantage of his position to keep the son short of money; and the son,
after the manner of Hanoverian heirs-apparent, retorted by throwing
himself into the arms of the Opposition. The Prince of Wales's great
grievance was that he received an allowance only of L50,000 and that _at
the King's pleasure_: and he contended that as George II, when Prince of
Wales, had received L100,000 a year from George I's Civil List of
L700,000, it was manifestly unfair that as the Civil List had been
increased to L800,000, the Prince of Wales's income should be reduced by
half and that dependent on the sovereign's humour.
[9] Hervey: _Memoirs of the Court of George II_.
Frederick, who had left Hanover in debt, had been further embarrassed in
London, and, to free himself from financial trouble discussed with
Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, a marriage between himself and her
granddaughter, Lady Diana Spencer,[10] conditional on the dowry being
L100,000. The ambitious old lady was favourable to the scheme--it has
been said, and perhaps with truth, that it was her proposal--and
arrangements were made for the ceremony to take place privately at the
Lodge in Windsor Great Park; but Sir Robert Walpole heard of it--that
wily statesman learnt most secrets--and told the King, who forbade the
marriage.
[10] Afterwards married John, fourth Duke of Bedford.
The Prince did not at first commit any serious offence against the King,
but he contrived, with or without intention, to irritate or affront him
almost daily. He wrote, or inspired, the "History of Prince Titi," in
which the King and Queen were caricatured; and, with the guidance of
Bubb Dodington,[11] formed a Court that became a _rendezvous_ of the
Opposition and the disaffected generally. It became his object in life
to outshine his father in popularity, and as George II was not a
favourite, and as Frederick could be agreeable when he wanted to make a
good impression, and, besides, had the invaluable asset of a reasonable
grievance, he did to a large extent succeed in his quest. "The Prince's
character at his first coming over, though little more respectable,
seemed much more amiable than, upon his opening himself further and
being better known, it turned out to be; for, though there appeared
nothing in him to be admired, yet there seemed nothing in him to be
hated--neither anything great nor anything vicious. His behaviour was
something that gained one's good wishes while it gave one no esteem for
him, for his best qualities, whilst they prepossessed one the most in
his favour, always gave one a degree of contempt for him at the same
time."[12]
[11] George Bubb Dodington, afterwards Baron Melcombe of Melcombe Regis
(1691-1762).
[12] Hervey: _Memoirs of the Court of George II_.
If George II was jealous of the Prince of Wales, the latter in turn was
jealous of his sister, the Princess Royal, and he regarded it as a
personal affront when in 1734 she was united to the Prince of Orange;
thus, in spite of his two endeavours, marrying before him, and securing
a settled income. A quarrel ensued, and the rivalry between the two
convulsed the operatic world into which, being in itself _opera bouffe_,
it was suitably carried. The Princess Royal was a friend and patron of
Handel at the Haymarket Theatre: and therefore must her brother and his
companions support the rival Buononcini at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The
King and Queen sided with their daughter, and, says Hervey, "The affair
grew as serious as that of the Greens and Blues under Justinian at
Constantinople; and an anti-Handelist was looked upon as an
anti-courtier, and voting against the Court in Parliament was hardly a
less remissible or more venial sin than speaking against Handel or going
to the Lincoln's Inn Fields Opera."[13] The victory in this
Tweedledum-Tweedledee controversy fell to the Prince, though the
sovereigns would not for a long time admit defeat, which gave
Chesterfield[14] the opening for a _mot_: he told the Prince he had been
that evening to the Haymarket Theatre, "but there being no one there but
the King and Queen, and as I thought they might be talking business, I
came away."
[13] _Memoirs of the Court of George II._
[14] Philip Dormer Stanhope, fourth Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773).
When the Princess Royal was married, the Prince of Wales presented
himself before the King, and made three demands--permission to serve in
the Rhine campaign, a settled and increased income, and a suitable
marriage. George II gave an immediate and decided refusal to the first,
but consented to consider the other proposals. As a result of
negotiations arising from this conversation, the Prince of Wales married
on April 26, 1736, Augusta, daughter of Frederick, Duke of Saxe-Gotha.
There were great national rejoicings, and "I believe," said Horace
Walpole, "the Princess will have more beauties bestowed on her by all
the occasional poets than ever a painter would afford her. They will
cook up a new Pandora, and in the bottom of the box enclose Hope that
all they have said is true." Indeed, a salvo of eulogistic addresses in
rhyme greeted the nuptial pair, headed by William Whitehead, the
Laureate, who, on such occasions, could always be relied upon to write
ridiculously fulsome lines.
"Such was the age, so calm the earth's repose,
When Maro sung, and a new Pollio rose.
Oh! from such omens may again succeed
Some glorious youth to grace the nuptial bed;
Some future Scipio, good as well as great;
Some young Marcellus with a better fate;
Some infant Frederick, or some George to grace
The rising records of the Brunswick race."
[Illustration: THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES AND (IN THE BACKGROUND)
MISS VANE AND HER SON
_April 25th, 1736_]
The new Princess of Wales was a mere girl, straight from her
mother's country house, and ignorant of courts, but not lacking
self-possession nor good sense. "The Princess is neither handsome nor
ugly, tall nor short, but has a lively, pretty countenance enough,"[15]
and she found favour in the eyes of her husband, who, though attracted
by her, was not content to be faithful. "The chief passion of the Prince
was women," says Horace Walpole; "but, like the rest of his race, beauty
was not a necessary ingredient." Soon after he came to England he had an
intrigue with Anne Vane, the eldest daughter of Gilbert, Baron Barnard,
and one of the Queen's maids of honour. "Beautiful Vanelia" was not
immaculate, and she gave birth to a child in her apartments in St.
James's Palace; the first Lord Hartington and Lord Hervey both believed
themselves to be the father, but she, to make the most of her
opportunity, wisely accredited the paternity to the Prince of Wales, who
thus earned the undying hatred of Hervey.[16] The proud father then
turned his attention to Lady Archibald Hamilton (wife of the Duke of
Hamilton's brother), who had ten children, was neither young nor
beautiful, but clever enough to let her husband believe she was
faithful, although the intimacy between her and her royal lover was
patent to all the world besides.
[15] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
[16] The boy was christened Cornwell Fitz-Frederick, and was buried in
Westminster Abbey, February 26, 1736.
Realising the advisability to be off with the old love before he was on
with the new, Frederick sent Lord Baltimore to Miss Vane, commanding her
to live abroad for a period, on pain of forfeiting the allowance of
L1,600 that he had made her since her dismissal from court--"if she
would not live abroad, she might starve for him in England." Miss Vane
sent for Hervey, who recommended her to refuse obedience--a step that
infuriated the Prince with the adviser; but eventually she reminded her
erstwhile lover of all she had sacrificed for the love she bore him, and
this so tickled his vanity that not only did he permit her to retain her
son and the income, and to remain in England, but gave her a house in
Grosvenor Street wherein to live.
Following the example of George II, who had appointed his mistress, Mrs.
Howard, to be woman of the bedchamber to his wife, Frederick made Lady
Archibald Hamilton a lady-in-waiting to the Princess of Wales. Lady
Archibald, however, was soon replaced in his favour by Lady Middlesex,
who, although not good-looking, was the possessor of many
accomplishments; but she had to be content to share his affections with
Miss Granville and various opera dancers and singers.
The Prince, being unable to secure an increased income from his father,
resorted to the usual princely device of borrowing money wherever he
could get it. "They have found a way in the city to borrow L30,000 for
the Prince at ten per cent. interest, to pay his crying debts to
tradespeople; but I doubt that sum will not go very far," wrote the
Duchess of Marlborough. "The salaries in the Prince's family are L25,000
a year, besides a good deal of expense at Cliefden in building and
furniture; and the Prince and Princess's allowance for their clothes is
L6,000 a year each. I am sorry there is such an increase in expense more
than in former times, when there was more money a great deal: and I
really think it would have been more for the Prince's interest if his
counsellors had advised him to live only as a great man, and to give the
reasons for it; and in doing so he would have made a better figure, and
been safer, for nobody that does not get by it themselves can possibly
think the contrary method a right one." The debts accumulated so
rapidly, that there was really some show of reason for Lord Hervey
(always on the look-out to revenge himself for the defection of his
mistress) saying to the Queen that there actually "was danger of the
King's days being shortened by the profligate usurers who lent the
Prince of Wales money on condition of being paid at his Majesty's
death, and who, he thought, would want nothing but a fair opportunity to
hasten the day of payment; and the King's manner of exposing himself
would make it easy for the usurers to accomplish such a design."[17]
[17] Hervey: _Memoirs of the Court of George II_.
Hitherto in his quarrels with his parents Frederick had not always been
in the wrong, but in 1737 he committed an unpardonable offence in
connexion with the birth of his first legitimate child, Augusta,
afterwards Duchess of Brunswick, and the mother of Caroline, the unhappy
consort of George IV. Though he had known for many months that the
Princess of Wales was with child he did not inform his parents of the
approaching event until July 5. But that was the least part of his
transgression. Twice in that month he took the Princess secretly from
Hampton Court to St. James's Palace, and on the second occasion, with
only Lady Archibald Campbell in attendance, arrived in London but a few
hours before the _accouchement_.
[Illustration:
_Photo by Emery Walker_
_From a portrait by Enoch Seaman_
CAROLINE, CONSORT OF GEORGE II]
[Illustration:
_Photo by Emery Walker_
_From a portrait by T. Worlidge_
GEORGE II]
The Queen had determined to be present at the birth.--"She [the Princess
of Wales] cannot be brought to bed as quick as one can blow one's nose,"
she had told the King, "and I will be sure it is her child." Both were
furious at being circumvented, and the King expressed his anger in no
measured terms. "See now, with all your wisdom, how they have outwitted
you," the King addressed his wife. "This is all your fault. There is a
false child will be put upon you, and how will you answer it to all your
children? This has been fine care and fine management for your son
William: he is much indebted to you." The Queen drove to St. James's
without delay, saw the child, and abandoned her suspicions. "God bless
you, poor little creature," she said as she kissed it, "you have come
into a disagreeable world." Had it been a big, healthy boy, instead of a
girl, she said, she might not so readily have accepted the paternity
claimed for it.
"The King has commanded me," Lord Essex[18] wrote from Hampton Court to
the Prince of Wales on August 3, "to acquaint your Royal Highness that
his Majesty most heartily rejoices at the safe delivery of the Princess;
but that your carrying away of her Royal Highness from Hampton Court,
the then residence of the King, the Queen, and the Royal Family, under
the pains and certain indication of immediate labour, to the imminent
danger and hazard both of the Princess and her child, and after
sufficient warnings for a week before, to have made the necessary
preparations for this happy event, without acquainting his Majesty, or
the Queen, with the circumstances the Princess was in, or giving them
the least notice of your departure, is looked upon by the King to be
such a deliberate indignity offered to himself and to the Queen, that he
resents it to the highest degree."[19]
[18] William Capel, third Earl of Essex.
[19] _Letters ... between the King, Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales,
on the occasion of the birth of the young Princess, 1737._
A lengthy correspondence ensued, wherein, on the one hand, the Prince
excused himself on the ground that the Princess was seized with the
pains of labour earlier than was expected, and that at Hampton Court he
was without a midwife or any assistance; and, on the other, the King
declined to accept these reasons as true, refused to receive his son,
and ordered him to leave St. James's as soon as possible, summing up the
situation in a final letter, dated September 10.
"GEORGE R.
"The professions you have lately made in your letters, of your
peculiar regards to me, are so contradictory to all your actions,
that I cannot suffer myself to be imposed upon by them. You know
very well you did not give the least intimation to me or to the
Queen that the Princess was with child or breeding, until within
less than a month of the birth of the young Princess: you removed
the Princess twice in the week immediately preceding the day of her
delivery from the place of my residence, in expectation, as you
have voluntarily declared, of her labour; and both times upon your
return, you industriously concealed from the knowledge of me and
the Queen every circumstance relating to this important affair: and
you, at last, without giving any notice to me, or to the Queen,
precipitately hurried the Princess from Hampton Court, in a
condition not to be named. After having thus, in execution of your
own determined measures, exposed both the Princess and her child to
the greatest perils, you now plead surprise and tenderness for the
Princess, as the only motives that occasioned these repeated
indignities offered to me and to the Queen your mother.
"This extravagant and undutiful behaviour in so essential a point
as the birth of an heir to my crown, is such evidence to your
premeditated defiance of me, and such a contempt of my authority
and of the natural right belonging to your parents, as cannot be
excused by the pretended innocence of your intentions, nor
palliated or disguised by specious words only.
"But the whole tenour of your conduct for a considerable time has
been so entirely void of all real duty to me, that I have long had
reason to be highly offended with you. And until you withdraw your
regard and confidence from those by whose instigation and advice
you are directed and encouraged in your unwarrantable behaviour to
me and your Queen, and until your return to your duty, you shall
not reside in my palace: which I will not suffer to be made the
resort of them who, under the appearance of an attachment to you,
foment the division which you have made in my family, and thereby
weaken the common interest of the whole.
"In the meantime, it is my pleasure that you leave St. James's with
all your family, when it can be done without prejudice or
inconvenience to the Princess. I shall for the present leave to the
Princess the care of my granddaughter, until a proper time calls
upon me to consider of her education.
"(signed) G. R."[20]
[20] _Letters ... between the King, Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales,
on the occasion of the birth of the young Princess, 1737._
The Prince, through Lord Baltimore, expressed a desire to make a
personal explanation to the Queen, who, through Lord Grantham, declined
to receive it; and later the Princess, doubtless prompted by her
husband, wrote to the King and Queen to express a desire for
reconciliation, but in vain, for, in the sovereign's eyes, their son's
offence was rank. Indeed, the King went so far as to print the
correspondence between himself and the Prince of Wales, to which the
latter made the effectual reply of publishing the not dissimilar letters
of his father, when Prince of Wales, to George I. This reduced the King
to impotent fury: he declared he did not believe Frederick could be his
son, and insisted that he must be "what in German we call a
_Wechselbalch_--I do not know if you have a word for it in English--it
is not what you call a foundling, but a child put in a cradle instead of
another."
What induced Frederick to risk the life of his wife and his unborn
child, and to put to hazard the succession was a mystery at the time,
and must for ever remain without satisfactory explanation. That it was
done solely to annoy his parents seems insufficient reason, though it is
all that offers, and Hervey suggests the hasty nocturnal removal was
effected to prevent the presence of the Queen at the birth. This
certainly seems insufficient to account for the unwarrantable
proceeding, but no other solution offers itself.
The Prince of Wales had in 1730 taken a lease from the Capel family of
Kew House (the fee of which was many years after purchased by George
III from the Dowager Countess of Essex), and there he and his wife
repaired for a while after being evicted from St. James's Palace; but
soon they came back to London, and held their court, first at Norfolk
House, St. James's Square, placed at their disposal by the Duke of
Norfolk, and later at Leicester House, Leicester Square. The King
expressed a wish that no one should visit his son, and actually caused
it to be intimated to foreign ambassadors that to call on the Prince of
Wales was objectionable to him; but this injunction was so generally
disregarded that he took the extraordinary step of issuing, through his
Chamberlain, a threat.
"His Majesty, having been informed that due regard has not been
paid to his order of September 11, 1737, has thought fit to declare
that no person whatsoever, who shall go to pay their court to their
Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales, shall be
admitted into his Majesty's presence, at any of his royal palaces.
"(signed) Grafton."
Even this measure failed of its effect, for while those who sought the
King's favour had not been to Leicester House, the Opposition, knowing
they had nothing to lose, were not affected by this command. Indeed, the
Opposition, delighted to have so influential a chief, flocked around
Frederick; and Bolingbroke,[21] Chesterfield, Pulteney,[22] Dodington,
Carteret,[23] Wyndham,[24] Townshend[25] and Cobham,[26] were soon
numbered among his regular visitors; while Huish has compiled a long
list of peers[27] who frequently attended his _levees_.
[21] Henry St. John, first Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751).
[22] Sir William Pulteney, afterwards Earl of Bath (1684-1764).
[23] John Carteret, afterwards Earl Granville (1690-1763).
[24] Sir Charles Wyndham, afterwards second Earl of Egremont
(1710-1763).
[25] Sir William Townshend, second son of Charles, second Viscount
Townshend (1702?-1738).
[26] Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham (1669?-1749).
[27] Dukes of Beaufort, Bedford, Argyle, Bridgwater and Roxburghe;
Marquis of Carnarvon; and Earls of Derby, Denbigh, Westmoreland,
Winchelsea, Thanet, Sandwich, Carlisle, Aylesbury, Litchfield,
Scarborough, Coventry, Oxford, Aylesford, Halifax, Macclesfield,
Darnley, Barrymore, Inclagreen and Gronard.
The Prince made a very determined bid for popularity among all classes.
He put himself at the head of "The Patriots," and in 1739 recorded his
first vote as a peer of Parliament against the Address and in favour of
the war policy; subsequently, when war was declared, taking part with
the Opposition in the public celebrations. He encouraged British
manufactures, and neither he nor the Princess wore, or encouraged the
wearing of, foreign materials. He gave entertainments to the nobility at
his seat at Cliefden in Buckinghamshire, and visiting Bath in 1738,
cleared the prison of all debtors and made a present of L1,000 towards
the general hospital. Nor did he neglect letters and art, for which he
had some slight regard. He patronised Thomson and Vertue the engraver,
employed Dr. Freeman to write a "History of the English Tongue" as a
text-book for Prince George and the younger princes;[28] sent two of his
court to Cave, the publisher, to inquire the name of the author of the
first issue of "The Rambler"; and exchanged badinage with Pope, whom he
visited at Twickenham. Pope received him with great courtesy and
expressions of attachment. "'Tis well," said Frederick, "but how shall
we reconcile your love to a prince with your professed indisposition to
kings, since princes will be kings in time?" "Sir," said the poet, "I
consider Royalty under that noble and authorized type of the lion: while
he is young and before his nails are grown, he may be approached and
caressed with safety and pleasure."[29]
[28] Besides Augusta, Frederick by his wife had issue: George III;
Edward Augustus, Duke of York and Albany (1739-1767); William Henry,
Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (1743-1805), Henry Frederick, Duke of
Cumberland (1745-1790); Frederick William (1750-1765); Caroline Matilda
(1751-1775); who married Christian VII, King of Denmark; and Louisa Anne
(1749-1768).
[29] Galt: _George III, his Court, and Family_.
Frederick became very popular. "The truth is," Mr. McCarthy has said
unkindly but with undoubted truth, "that the people in general, knowing
little about the Prince, and knowing a great deal about the King,
naturally leaned to the side of the man who might at least turn out to
be better than his father."[30]
[30] Justin McCarthy: _History of the Four Georges_.
There was a general impression that he had been ill-treated, and there
was a disposition among the lower classes to make amends for such a
slight as having to live as a private gentleman at Norfolk House,
without even the usual appanage of a sentry.
"Some I have heard who speak this with rebuke,
Guards should attend as well the prince as duke.
Guards should protect from insult Britain's heir,
Who greatly merits all the nation's care.
Pleas'd with the honest zeal, they thus express,
I tell them what each statesman must confess;
No guard so strong, so noble, e'er can prove,
As that which Frederick has--_a people's love_."
"My God, popularity makes me sick; but Fritz's popularity makes me
vomit," exclaimed the Queen, perhaps after hearing that when Frederick
assisted to extinguish a fire, the mob cried, "Crown him! crown him!" "I
hear that yesterday, on his side of the House, they talked of the King's
being cast aside with the same _sang froid_ as one would talk of a coach
being overturned; and that my good son strutted about as if he had been
already King. Did you mind the air with which he came into my
Drawing-room in the morning, though he does not think fit to honour me
with his presence or _ennui_ me with that of his wife's of a night. I
swear his behaviour shocked me so prodigiously that I could hardly bring
myself to speak to him when he was with me afterwards; I felt something
here in my throat that swelled and half choked me." The King was as
bitter, and refused to admit Frederick to the Queen's deathbed. "His
poor mother is not in a condition to see him act his false, whining,
cringing tricks now," while the Queen declared that she was sure he
wanted to see her only to have the delight of knowing she was dead a
little sooner than if he had to await the tidings at home.
An attempt in 1742 to bring to an end the crying scandal of the open
enmity between the King and the heir-apparent was made by Walpole, who
thought, by detaching the Prince from the Opposition, to strengthen his
steadily decreasing majority. The Bishop of Oxford[31] was sent to
Norfolk House to intimate that if the Prince would make his peace with
his father through the medium of a submissive letter, ministers would
prevail upon the King to increase his income by L50,000, pay his debts
to the tune of L200,000 and find places for his friends. The terms were
tempting, but the Prince, knowing that Walpole's position was
precarious, declined them, stating that he knew the offer came, not from
the King, but from the minister, and that, while he would gladly be
reconciled to his father, he could do so without setting a price upon
it. "Walpole," he declared, "was a bar between the King and his people,
between the King and foreign powers; between the King and himself." The
refusal was politic, for Walpole was most unpopular. "I have _added_ to
the debt of the nation," so ran the inscription on a scroll issuing from
the mouth of an effigy of Walpole, sitting between the King and the
Prince; "I have _subtracted_ from its glory; I have _multiplied_ its
embarrassments; and I have _divided_ its Royal Family." The Prince's
refusal to entertain the overture was a blow to the minister, who
contended against a majority in the House of Commons, until February 2,
1742, when he declared he would regard the question of the Chippenham
election as a vote of confidence, and, if defeated upon it, would never
again enter that House. He was beaten by sixteen, and on the 18th inst.
took his seat "in another place" as the Earl of Orford.
[31] Thomas Secker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.
"The Bishop, who had been bred a Presbyterian and man-midwife, which
sect and profession he had dropped for a season, while he was president
of a very free-thinking club, has been converted by Bishop Talbot, whose
relation he married, and had his faith settled in a prebend of
Durham."--Horace Walpole.
Immediately after Walpole's downfall, messages were exchanged between
Norfolk House and St. James's, and on February 17 father and son met and
embraced at the palace. The Prince's friends came into office, and so
happy was the Prince that he testified to his joy by liberating
four-and-twenty prisoners from his father's Bench--the amount of their
debts being added to his own. He was indeed so overcome with delight at
his virtue in being reconciled to his father that he ventured upon a
joke when Mr. Vane, who was notoriously in the court interest,
congratulated him on his reappearance at St. James's. "A vane," quoth he
to the courtier, "is a weathercock, which turns with every gust of the
wind, and therefore I dislike a vane." Witty, generous Prince!
The reconciliation was shortlived, and thereafter, for the rest of his
life, Frederick was again in opposition to the court; but of these later
years there is little or nothing to record, save that he solicited in
vain the command of the royal army in the rebellion of '45. In March,
1751, he caught cold, and on the 20th inst., while, by his bedside,
Desnoyers was playing the violin to amuse him, crying, "_Je sens la
mort_," he expired suddenly--it is said from the bursting of an abscess
which had been formed by a blow from a tennis ball. The King received
the news at the whist table, and, showing neither surprise nor emotion,
he crossed the room to where the Countess of Yarmouth sat at another
table, and, after saying simply, "_Il est mort_," retired to his
apartments. "I lost my eldest son," he remarked subsequently, "but I am
glad of it."
The writers of the day were fulsome in their praise of the deceased
Prince. Robert Southy says, Frederick died "to the unspeakable
affliction of his royal consort, and the unfeigned sorrow of all who
knew him;" and he sums him up as "a tender and obliging husband, a fond
parent, a kind master, liberal, candid and humane, a munificent patron
of the arts, an unwearied friend to merit, well-disposed to assert the
rights of mankind, in general, and warmly attached to the interests of
Great Britain."[32] In fact, Sir Galahad and the Admirable Crichton in
one! Southy was not alone in his outspoken admiration, for Mr. McCarthy
reminds us of a volume issued by Oxford University, "_Epicedia
Oxoniensia in obitum celsissimi et desideratissimi Frederici Principis
Walliae_. Here all the learned languages, and not the learned languages
alone, contributed the syllables of simulated despair. Many scholastic
gentlemen mourned in Greek; James Stillingfleet found vent in Hebrew;
Mr. Betts concealed his tears under the cloak of the Syriac speech;
George Costard sorrowed in Arabic that might have amazed Abu l'Atahiyeh;
Mr. Swinton's learned sock stirred him to Phoenician and Etruscan; and
Mr. Evans, full of national fire and the traditions of the bards,
delivered himself, and at great length, too, in Welsh."[33] Amusing,
too, was a sermon preached at Mayfair Chapel, in the course of which the
preacher, lamenting the demise of the royal personage, declared that his
Royal Highness "had no great parts, but he had great virtues; indeed,
they degenerated into vices; he was very generous, but I hear his
generosity has ruined a great many people; and then his condescension
was such that he kept very bad company."
[32] Robert Southy: _Authentic Memoirs of George the Third_.
[33] Justin McCarthy: _History of the Four Georges_.
Very differently spoke those who knew the Prince. "He was indeed as
false as his capacity would allow him to be, and was more capable in
that walk than in any other, never having the least hesitation, from
principle or fear of future detection, in telling any lie that served
his future purpose. He had a much weaker understanding, and, if
possible, a more obstinate temper than his father; that is, more
tenacious of opinions he had once formed, though less capable of ever
forming right ones. Had he had one grain of merit at the bottom of his
heart, one should have had compassion for him in the situation to which
his miserable poor head soon reduced him, a mother that despised him,
sisters that betrayed him, a brother set up against him, and a set of
servants that neglected him, and were neither of use nor capable of
being of use to him, or desirous of being so."[34] So said Lord Hervey,
and, though his known enmity to Frederick makes one reluctant to accept
his estimate, yet it must be admitted that his remarks are borne out by
others well qualified to judge. "A poor, weak, irresolute, false, lying,
dishonest, contemptible wretch, that nobody loves, that nobody
believes, that nobody will trust, and that will trust everybody by
turns, and that everybody by turns will impose upon, betray, mislead,
and plunder." Thus Sir Robert Walpole, who, during the Prince's
lifetime, thought that, if the King should die, the Queen and her
unmarried children would be in a bad way. "I do not know any people in
the world so much to be pitied," he said to Hervey, "as that gay young
company with which you and I stand every day in the drawing-room at that
door from which we this moment came, bred up in state, in affluence,
caressed and courted, and to go at once from that into dependence upon a
brother who loves them not, and whose extravagance and covetousness will
make him grudge every guinea they spend, as it must come out of a purse
not sufficient to defray the expenses of his own vices."
[34] Hervey: _Memoirs of the Court of George II_.
A later generation has not been more kind. "If," said Leigh Hunt,
"George the First was a commonplace man of the quiet order, and George
the Second of the bustling, Frederick was of an effeminate sort,
pretending to taste and gallantry, and possessed of neither. He affected
to patronise literature in order to court popularity, and because his
father and grandfather had neglected it; but he took no real interest in
the _literati_, and would meanly stop their pensions when he got out of
humour. He passed his time in intriguing against his father, and
hastening the ruin of a feeble constitution by sorry amours." "His best
quality was generosity," Horace Walpole has recorded; "his worst
insincerity and indifference to truth, which appeared so early that Earl
Stanhope wrote to Lord Sunderland, 'He has his father's head, and his
mother's heart.'"[35]
[35] Horace Walpole: _Memoirs of the Reign of George II_.
What is to be said in his favour? That through his intercession Flora
Macdonald, imprisoned for harbouring the Chevalier, received her
liberty: that when Richard Glover, the author of "Leonidas," fell upon
evil days he sent him five hundred pounds; that he was a plausible
speaker,[36] fond of music, the author of two songs, and had sufficient
sense of humour to institute an occasional practical joke. On the other
hand, he was a gambler and a spendthrift without a notion of common
honesty; he was unstable and untruthful, a feeble enemy and a lukewarm
friend; and is, indeed, best disposed of in the well-known verse:
"Here lies Fred,
Who was alive, and is dead.
Had it been his father,
I had much rather.
Had it been his brother,
Still better than another.
Had it been his sister,
No one would have missed her.
Had it been the whole generation,
Still better for the nation.
But since 'tis only Fred,
Who was alive, and is dead,
There's no more to be said."
[36] "As a friend to liberty in general, and to toleration in
particular, I wish you may meet with all proper favour; but for myself I
never give my vote in Parliament; and to influence my friends or direct
my servants in theirs does not become my station. To leave them entirely
to their own conscience and understanding is a rule I have hitherto
prescribed to myself, and it is my purpose to adhere to it through the
whole of my life." This was Frederick's reply to the Quaker who asked
him to use his influence in favour of the bill concerning his sect; and,
as Huish remarks, "could anything be more agreeable to the spirit of the
British constitution?"