THE KING UNDER GRENVILLE
The King accepted Lord Bute's resignation without regret, and indeed
made so little secret of his pleasure that, according to Lord Hardwicke,
he appeared "like a person just emancipated," for, in spite of his
personal feeling for his old friend, he thought that as a minister Bute
had shown a deplorable lack of political firmness. Bute's day as a
public official had passed for ever, and not the most subtle intrigue of
the Princess Dowager could induce her son even to discuss the question
of the ex-minister's return to power, although for some time to come he
was, as we shall see, a power in the closet, and, indeed, with one
exception, it is said, chose the members of the Cabinet of his
successor.
"I do not believe that the King ever wished to reinstate the Earl of
Bute," Nicholl wrote subsequently. "He saw the earl's want of courage;
probably he saw his incapacity, and his unfitness to serve his views:
but it is possible that the Princess Dowager of Wales might still retain
a wish that the Earl of Bute should be replaced in the office of Prime
Minister."
When Grenville first came into office the King's regard for the new
Prime Minister was so great as to lead him to declare that "he never
could have anybody else at the head of his Treasury who would fill that
office so much to his satisfaction."[278] Grenville was in many ways
acceptable to George. "His official connexion with Bute, his separation
from the great Whig families, his unblemished private character, his
eminent business faculties, his industry, his methodical habits, his
economy, his freedom alike from the fire and the vagaries of genius, his
dogged obstinacy, his contempt for popularity, were all points of
affinity."[279]
[278] _Grenville Papers._
[279] Lecky: _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_.
Grenville came into office to protect the King from the Whigs, and,
indeed, was appointed on condition that none of the Newcastle and Pitt
ministry were to be included in the new administration, although he was
assured favour might be shown to those Whigs who would support the
Government. It soon became obvious, however that the King had only
exchanged one set of rulers for another. He had thought to have found in
Grenville a pliant tool: he discovered too late he had placed himself in
the hands of a harsh task-master. The qualities that George and
Grenville had in common, while uniting them at first, very shortly
came between them. Both were fond of power, both yielded only under
compulsion, both were untactful and ignorant of the soft answer that
turneth away wrath. The Minister made no attempt to ingratiate himself
with the King, and his attitude reduced the latter to a state of fury,
not the less violent because at the moment he was impotent.[280]
Grenville's overbearing manner drew from George the complaint, "When I
have anything proposed to me, it is no longer as counsel, but what I am
to obey;" while his tedious prolixity was a further trial. "When he has
wearied me for two hours," George complained to Lord Bute, "he looks at
his watch to see if he may not tire me for an hour more."[281]
[280] "We entered into the King's service to hinder the law from being
indecently and unconstitutionally given to him."--_Grenville Papers._
[281] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[Illustration: _From a painting by Wm. Hoare_
THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE GRENVILLE]
Indeed, Grenville possessed most of the qualities unsuitable for the
First Minister of the Crown. He had the advantage of courage and
ability, but was a near-sighted politician, an ungracious colleague, and
a bad speaker; and, while he had a keen eye for the main chance so far
as himself was concerned, was unwisely penurious for the revenue. He
made an implacable enemy of the King, when the latter took in a portion
of the Green Park to form a new garden for Buckingham House, by
declining to purchase for the Crown at the cost of L20,000 a plot of
ground, now known as Grosvenor Place, on which houses were to be built
that would overlook the royal family in their private walks.[282]
[282] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
The King, finding his head in a noose, made strenuous efforts to
extricate himself. In April, 1763, Grenville had become Prime Minister:
in July George sought the advice of Bute how to rid himself of his _bete
noir_, and then and there made overtures to Hardwicke and Newcastle,
who, however, declined to accept office without their party. After the
death of Lord Egremont early in August, Bute suggested a coalition, and
sent Sir Harry Erskine to Alderman Beckford to arrange a meeting between
himself and Pitt. Pitt received Bute at his house in Jermyn Street, and,
presumably, the conversation was not unsatisfactory, for on the 23rd
inst. the King sent for him and asked him to state his views. Pitt
inveighed against the ignominious peace, and complained of the
compulsory retirement of the Whigs, who, if he accepted office, must be
restored to power. As a matter of fact, the Whigs were not inspired with
any kindly feeling towards George, who, in pursuance of his policy that
he must be ruler of the realm, had inflicted on their leaders several
petty slights. When the Duke of Devonshire,[283] "the Prince of the
Whigs," who had declined to take part in the discussion about the peace,
had called at St. James's in October, 1762, George, to mark his
displeasure, had sent a message by a page, "Tell the Duke I will not see
him." The Duke at once resigned his post as Lord Chamberlain, and his
brother, Lord George Cavendish, retiring from the Household, was
received with marked discourtesy, as was also Lord Rockingham,[284] who,
remonstrating with the King for his incivility, surrendered his office
in the Bedchamber. Not content with these signs of his annoyance, George
struck out the Duke's name from the list of Privy Councillors,[285]
deprived the Duke of Newcastle, the Duke of Grafton,[286] and Lord
Rockingham, of the Lord-Lieutenancies of their respective counties, and
dismissed the great majority of Whigs who held minor offices not usually
vacated at a change of ministry. Even military men who voted against the
Government on the question of general warrants were deprived of their
commands, which was going even farther than Rigby approved[287], though
the King declared, "Firmness and resolution must be shown and no one
saved who dared to fly off."[288]
[283] William Cavendish, fourth Duke of Devonshire (1720-1764).
[284] Charles Watson Wentworth, second Marquis of Rockingham
(1730-1782).
[285] "A severity of which there had been no precedent in the last
reign, but in the cases of Lord Bath and Lord George Sackville; the
first, in open and virulent opposition; the second on his ignominious
sentence after the Battle of Minden."--Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[286] Augustus Henry Fitzroy, third Duke of Grafton (1735-1811).
[287] "I have reason to believe that there will be a general _deroute_
from the Duke of Grafton's Lieutenancy of the county of Suffolk to the
underlings of the Custom House," Rigby wrote at the time, "and I think,
if military men are excepted, as I trust they will be, the measure
entirely right."--_Bedford Correspondence._
[288] _Grenville Papers._
The King was in a quandary. He was anxious to dismiss Grenville, but at
least as desirous to avoid a Whig administration which, after the
indignities inflicted on the leaders, would scarcely be friendly: still,
in his conversation with Pitt, he went so far as to offer to accept Lord
Temple at the Treasury, and, declaring "his honour must be consulted,"
gave Pitt an appointment for an interview two days later. Pitt thought
the matter was settled, and communicated with his friends, who were
consequently elated. "Atlas has left the globe to turn on its own axis,"
said Charles Townshend, referring to Grenville's absence from town
during these negotiations. "Surely he should be prompt when public
credit labours, and he either mistakes the subject or slights the
difficulty. This man has crept into a situation he cannot fill. He has
assumed a personage his limbs cannot carry. He has jumped into a wheel
he cannot turn. The summer dream is passing away. Cold winter is coming
on; and I will add to you that the storm must be stood, for there will
be no shelter from coalition, nor any escape by compromise. There has
been too much insolence in the use of power; too much injustice to
others; too much calumny at every turn." The hopes of the Opposition
were, however, dashed to the ground, for when it came to the point,
George could not bring himself to accept the Whigs _en bloc_, and, on
the 25th inst., after Pitt had reiterated his terms, dismissed him,
saying, "Well, Mr. Pitt, I see this will not do. My honour is concerned,
and I must support it."
There was now no other course open to the King than to ask Grenville to
remain in office, to which request the minister assented, but only after
delivering to the King a lecture on the duty of a sovereign to be loyal
to his recognized advisers, and extracting from him a promise that Lord
Bute should never again interfere in affairs of state. Yet, in spite of
this undertaking, it became known to the Prime Minister that, a few days
later, Bute attempted to reopen negotiations with Pitt. Thereupon,
Grenville, justly indignant, reproached the King, who promised that
nothing of the sort should happen again, to which the minister replied
drily that he hoped not, and forthwith set about insuring himself
against further interference by insisting on Bute's retirement from
London, and refusing to allow the office of Keeper of the Privy Purse,
which Bute vacated, to be given to one of the latter's friends. "Good
God! Mr. Grenville," exclaimed the King, "am I to be suspected after all
I have done?"
The King, who made a "skilful but most dishonourable use of the
incautious frankness of Pitt in the closet,"[289] contrived to sow
dissension among the Whig leaders, and by these unworthy devices
contrived to excite the anger of the Duke of Bedford, whom, through the
instrumentality of Lord Sandwich, he, in September, 1763, persuaded to
accept the post of President of the Council. About the same time Lord
Shelburne,[290] who had been intriguing against Grenville, resigned the
Presidency of the Board of Trade, partly because he thought he was not
sufficiently considered in the ministerial councils, and partly because
he very heartily hated his colleagues. It is said further that he
doubted the legality of the proceedings against Wilkes, though his
enemies scoffed at the idea of his having any motive so disinterested.
He resigned office on September 3, and afterwards voted with
Fitzmaurice, Calcraft and Barre against the Government, for which
offence the King removed his name from the list of _aides-de-camp_, and
deprived Barre of his posts of Adjutant-General of the Forces and
Governor of Stirling Castle.
[289] Lecky: _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_.
[290] Sir William Petty, second Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805), created
Marquis of Lansdowne, 1784.
In spite of the unpopularity of the Duke of Bedford, which arose out of
his share in the negotiations for the peace, the changes strengthened
the administration, and for a while George, somewhat mollified by
Grenville's attitude towards Wilkes, and being in full agreement with
the ministerial policy towards America, lived in comparative harmony
with his advisers. This agreeable state of affairs was soon, however, to
be rudely disturbed.
The King was taken ill on January 12, 1765, and on the following day Sir
William Duncan informed the Prime Minister that his Majesty had a
violent cold, had passed a restless night, complained of stitches in
his breast, and was bled fourteen ounces. On the 15th inst. Grenville
went to the King, and "found him perfectly cheerful and good-humoured,
and full of conversation," after which date no one saw the King, not
even his brothers, and it was not until March that Lord Bute, who in the
interval had pressed to see him, was admitted for the first time to his
presence.[291] The King was suffering from mental derangement, but such
were the precautions taken, that this was not known beyond the
Palace:[292] the illness was declared to be the outcome of cold and
fever, and this announcement, when the confinement threatened to be
lengthy, was supplemented by the statement that a humour, which should
have appeared in his face, had by unskilful treatment been allowed to
settle on his chest. The public anxiety was not assuaged by these
bulletins, and, convinced that something was being withheld, jumped to
the conclusion that the King was in a consumption. So well was the
secret kept that Nicholls wrote in 1819, "I know it has been said that
his illness was a mental derangement, but I do not believe it";[293] and
Wraxall about the same time remarked, "George the Third was attacked by
a disorder that confined him for several weeks; relative to the nature
and seal of which malady, though many conjectures and assertions have
been hazarded, in conversation, and even in print, no satisfactory
information has ever been given to the world."[294] Even George
Grenville was in ignorance of the nature of the disorder. At the
beginning of March there was a marked improvement in George's condition,
and when Grenville saw him on the 18th inst. he noted "the King's
countenance and manner a good deal estranged, but he was civil and
talked upon several different subjects;" and a week later, when he was
again admitted to the royal presence, he "found his Majesty well to all
appearance."[295] On April 5, completely recovered, the King held a
_levee_.
[291] _Grenville Papers._
[292] An example of the care taken not to let the truth be known is
given by Adolphus in his _History of England_ (_new edition_, 1840).
"The malady with which his Majesty was afflicted exhibited similar
symptoms to those which, in 1788, and during the last years of his life,
gave so much unhappiness to the nation. I did not mention the fact in
former editions of this work, because I knew that the King, and all who
loved him, were desirous that it should not be drawn into notice; so
anxious were they on this point, that Smollett, having intimated it in
his 'Complete History of England,' the text was revised in the general
impression; a very few copies in the original form were disposed of, and
they are now rare."
[293] John Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
[294] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
[295] _Grenville Papers._
It has been hinted that the first traces of mental derangement had shown
themselves in June, 1762, when Lord Hardwicke informed Lord Royston, "I
fear his Majesty was very ill, for physicians do not deal so roughly
with such patients without necessity." "It is amazing and very lucky
that his Majesty's illness gave no more alarm, considering that the
Queen is with child, and the law of England has made no provision for
government when no king or a minor king exists," Henry Fox noted. "He
goes out now, but he coughs still; and, which no subject of his would be
refused or refuse himself, he cannot or will not go to lie in the
country air; though if there was ever anything malignant in that of
London since I was born, it is at this time."[296] Walpole, too, heard
of the trouble, though he, like the rest, was in ignorance of the nature
of the malady, but he was perturbed by the lack of any measure for
carrying on the government in the event of the King's illness or demise.
"Have you not felt a pang in your royal capacity?" he wrote on June 20,
1762. "Seriously, it has been dreadful, but the danger is over. The King
had one of the last of those strange and universally epidemic colds,
which, however, have seldom been fatal. He had a violent cough and
oppression on his breast which he concealed, just as I had; but my life
was of no consequence, and having no physicians-in-ordinary, I was cured
in four nights by James's powders, without bleeding. The King was
blooded seven times and had three blisters. Thank God, he is safe, and
we have escaped a confusion beyond what was ever known, but on the
accession of the Queen of Scots."
[296] Lord Holland's _Memoir_ in _The Life and Letters of Lady Sarah
Lennox_.
Though nothing was done in 1762, on his recovery in March, 1765, the
King realized it was imperative to make provision for a regency in case
of his incapacity or death, and suggested he should be empowered to name
a person in his will, while, to "prevent faction," keeping the
nomination secret.[297] This, of course, could not be permitted; but it
was decided that a Bill should be introduced by ministers, and a
reference to it was made in the King's Speech on April 24: "My late
indisposition, though not attended with danger, has led me to consider
the situation in which my kingdoms and my family might be left, if it
should please God to put a period to my life while my successor is of
tender years."
[297] _Grenville Papers._
A Bill was brought in, limiting the King's choice of a regent to the
Queen or any other person of the royal family, and a question arose
whether the Princess Dowager was a member of the royal family. When this
was decided in the affirmative, the Duke of Bedford, who was anxious to
prevent Bute from the exercise of even indirect control of affairs,
persuaded Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich to tell the King that, if the
Princess Dowager's name were included, the House of Commons would reject
it. The King, desirous to avoid the chance of such an insult to his
mother, yielded to the ministers' representations, and the Princess
Dowager was pointedly excluded. That is one version of the story, but
Lord Hardwicke gives another. After stating that the Duke of Cumberland
was much hurt that the princes of the blood were not to be named in the
Council of Regency, he relates, "While the Regency Bill was in the House
of Lords, the clause naming the King's brothers was concerted, with the
Duke of Cumberland, unknown to the ministry till the King sent it to
them. They, to return the compliment, framed the clause for omitting the
Princess Dowager, and procured the King's consent to it. This raised a
storm in the interior of the palaces; and the result of it, after many
intrigues and jarrings, was the overthrow of that administration."[298]
Walpole, on the other hand, thought that ministers conceived that the
omission of the Princess would be universally approved. "They flattered
themselves with acquiring such popularity by that act, that the King
would not dare to remove them."[299] Whether the motive was desire of
popularity or revenge, the move was a great mistake. George soon learnt
that the danger was purely fictitious, and thereupon, with tears in his
eyes, he begged Grenville to reinsert the name of the Princess Dowager;
but the Prime Minister, though he had been no party to the manoeuvre
practised by the secretaries of state, declined to abandon his
colleagues, and would undertake to give way only if the House of Commons
pressed the point. In the Lords the Duke of Richmond had moved that the
regency should consist of the Queen, the Princess Dowager and all the
descendants of the late King usually in England, and Lord Halifax
accepted the Duke's words with the single omission of the Princess
Dowager, to which amendment the House agreed. "The astonishment of the
world is not to be described," Walpole wrote to Lord Hertford, "Lord
Bute's friends are thunderstruck; the Duke of Bedford almost danced
about the House for joy." The surprise of the friends of the Princess
Dowager, however, soon gave way to indignation, and, during the second
reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, Morton, the member for
Abingdon and Chief Justice of Chester, well known to be in the excluded
lady's confidence, moved, with the King's approval and at the suggestion
of Lord Northington, the insertion of her Royal Highness's name, which,
as the Government could not vote in full strength against their master's
mother, was carried by 167 to 17 in the Commons and without a
dissentient in the Lords.[300]
[298] Lord Hardwicke: _Memorial_.
[299] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[300] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
George believed he had been deliberately deceived by Lord Halifax and
Lord Sandwich, and furious at the unnecessary insult to his mother in
which he had been led to participate, on May 6, through the medium of
Lord Northumberland, asked his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, to
undertake the charge of negotiations that might lead to the return to
office of Pitt, Lord Temple, and the great Whig families.[301] This
seems a strange proceeding to Englishmen to-day, when a minister who has
a majority in the House of Commons is practically immovable; but then
the King, who could appoint a minister, could on his own initiative
dismiss him, the only difficulty being to secure a successor. The power
of appointment and dismissal of a government is, of course, still the
prerogative of the sovereign, but it is impossible to say what would
happen were any attempt made to exercise the nominal privilege. In this
particular case there was some reason for the King's action, for the
weakness of the existing administration was notorious. "The Regency Bill
has shown such a want of concert and want of capacity in the ministers,
such an inattention to the honour of the Crown, if not such a design
against it; such imposition and surprise upon the King; and such a
misrepresentation of the disposition of the parliament to the sovereign
that there is no doubt that there is a fixed resolution to get rid of
them all (except perhaps of Grenville), but principally the Duke of
Bedford," Burke wrote to Henry Flood. "Nothing but an intractable temper
in your friend Pitt can prevent a most admirable and lasting system from
being put together, and this crisis will show whether pride or
patriotism be predominant in his character; for you may be assured he
has it in his power to come into service of his country, upon any plan
of politics he may choose to dictate, with great and honourable terms to
himself and to every friend he has in the world, and with such a
stretch of power as will be equal to everything but absolute despotism
over the King and kingdom. A few days will show whether he will take
this part, or that of continuing on his back at Hayes, talking fustian,
excluded from all ministerial, and incapable of all parliamentary,
service. For his gout is worse than ever; but his pride may disable him
more than his gout."[302]
[301] "There is no animal on the face of the earth that the Duke has a
more thorough contempt for, or a greater aversion to, than
Grenville."--Stuart Mackenzie.
[302] Prior: _Life of Burke_.
Burke had gauged the situation to a nicety. Pitt was the only man who
could form a strong and lasting administration, and he showed no
alacrity to accept the invitation. In the meantime the King's impatience
got the better of him, and when on May 18 Grenville waited on him with
the draft of the speech with which his Majesty should close the session,
the following conversation took place. "There is no hurry," said the
King; "I will have Parliament adjourned, not prorogued." "Has your
Majesty any thought of making a change in your Administration?"
"Certainly," was the reply. "I cannot bear it as it is." "I hope your
Majesty will not order me to cut my own throat?" "Then," said the King,
"who must adjourn the Parliament?" "Whoever your Majesty shall appoint
my successor," replied the minister; and thereupon intimated that in a
few days he and his colleagues would tender their resignations. Again
the King had dismissed his ministers without having made arrangements
for their successors, and again he was faced with the problem how the
government was to be carried on in the interval. "This is neither
administration nor government," Walpole wrote to Lord Hertford. "The
King is out of town; and this is the crisis in which Mr. Pitt, who could
stop every evil, chooses to be more unreasonable than ever."
Pitt, who at this time was living in retirement, had in October, 1764,
told the Duke of Newcastle he intended to remain unconnected, but, when
now approached, he was not unwilling to accept office, if he might
restore officers and others who had been removed for opposition to the
Court, if he might declare general warrants illegal and amend the
notoriously unpopular Cyder Act, if "ample justice and favour" might be
shown to Chief-Justice Pratt (who was in disgrace at Court owing to his
judgment in the Wilkes case), and if he was at liberty to enter into an
alliance with continental powers against the Bourbons.[303] When it
appeared likely that these points would be conceded, Lord Temple would
not undertake to join a ministry formed to displace his brother,[304]
and, as Pitt would not take office without his brother-in-law, to whom
he was deeply attached and greatly indebted for much kindness, the
negotiations fell through. Unable to find relief for his nephew in this
quarter, the Duke of Cumberland made ineffectual overtures first to Lord
Lyttelton[305] and, subsequently, to Charles Townshend, after which he
felt bound to advise George to recall Grenville.
[303] The Duke of Cumberland's _Statement_ in _The Memoirs of
Rockingham_.
[304] "The reconciliation between Lord Temple and George Grenville took
place on May 22 at Lord Temple's house in Pall Mall. In the course of
the following month we find Grenville happily domesticated at Stow; nor
was the renewed good understanding between the two brothers ever
afterwards interrupted."--_Grenville Papers._
[305] George, first Baron Lyttelton (1703-1773).
"No man so propense to art was less artful; no man staked his honesty to
less purpose, for he was so awkward that honesty was the only quality
that seemed natural to him. His cunning was so often in default that he
was a kind of beacon that warned men not to approach the shallows on
which he founded his attachments always at the wrong season." Thus was
Lyttelton's character depicted by Walpole, who described his person:
"With the figure of a spectre, and the gesticulations of a puppet, he
talked heroics through his nose."
The King had an interview with Grenville on May 22, and on the following
day the ex-ministers met to decide the terms on which they would return
to office. "The King is reduced to the mortification--and it is
extreme--of taking his old ministers again," Walpole wrote to Lord
Hertford. "They are insolent enough, you may believe. Grenville has
treated his master in the most impertinent manner, and they are now
actually discussing the terms that they mean to impose on their
captive."
Ministers demanded that Lord Bute should not interfere directly or
indirectly in the affairs of Government and that his brother, Stuart
Mackenzie,[306] should be dismissed from the office of Keeper of the
Privy Seal of Scotland; that Lord Holland should be deprived of the
Pay-mastership of the Forces, which should in future be held by a member
of the House of Commons; that the Marquis of Granby should be head of
the army, and that the government of Ireland should be left to the
discretionary arrangement of the ministry.[307] The King was furious
and, but that he was impotent at the moment, would have unhesitatingly
refused even to discuss most of these conditions. The only concession he
could obtain was from Lord Granby, who waived his claim to be
Captain-General during the life of the Duke of Cumberland. Lord Holland
had to go, although the King, who was bound to him by ties of gratitude,
would gladly have retained him; and ministers were united as to the
dismissal of Mackenzie, and would not even allow the King's plea that he
had promised Mackenzie the post for life and that he would disgrace
himself by breaking his word, to weigh with them in the least. Even
George's tears made no impression on Grenville and his colleagues,
though his embarrassment affected Mackenzie himself, who in spite of the
fact that he had accepted his present position at the King's request in
exchange for another and more lucrative office, which was desired for
some one else, surrendered the Privy Seal without demur. "His Majesty
sent for me to his closet, where I was a considerable time with him, and
if it were possible to love my excellent Prince now better than I did
before, I should certainly do it, for I have every reason that can
induce a generous or a grateful mind to feel his goodness to me,"
Mackenzie wrote to Sir Andrew Mitchell. "But such was his Majesty's
situation at that time, that had he absolutely rejected my dismissal, he
would have put me in the most disagreeable position in the world, and,
what was of much higher consequence, he would have greatly distressed
his affairs."[308]
[306] The Honourable James Archibald Stuart, Lord Bute's brother, took
the name of Mackenzie on succeeding to the estate of his
great-grandfather, Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh.
[307] Adolphus: _History of England_.
[308] Ellis: _Original Letters_.
Grenville without delay appointed Lord Frederick Campbell Privy Seal,
Charles Townshend Paymaster, and Lord Weymouth Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. The humiliation of the King could go no deeper, nor was it
appreciably mitigated by his refusal to appoint Lord Waldegrave Master
of the Horse to the Queen--her Majesty said no minister should interfere
in _her_ family--and appointed the Duke of Ancaster; by his bestowal of
the command of the first regiment that fell vacant on Lord Albemarle's
brother, General Keppel; or by the paying of marked attention to the
young Duke of Devonshire.[309] Indeed, these signs of defiance were met
by the minister with a remonstrance which took an hour to read,
regretting that the King's authority and the King's favour did not go
together. "If I had not broken out into the most profuse sweat," said
the unhappy monarch, "I should have been suffocated with
indignation."[310]
[309] The fifth Duke, who succeeded to the title in 1764.
[310] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_; Walpole: _Memoirs of George
III_.
"Upon the strength of Mr. Pitt's refusing the King, the Duke of Bedford,
Lord Sandwich, and G. Grenville have insulted the King," Lady Sarah
Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien, on June 22, 1765. "They told him
that as he could get no others he must take them, but they would not
come in positively without such and such conditions, one of which was
turning out Mr. Mackenzie. The poor man has been obliged to swallow the
pill, but his anger is turned to sulkiness, and he never says a word
more than is necessary to them, and sees Mr. Pitt and the Duke of
Cumberland constantly. I think he ought to have been violent and steady
at first, but since he once submitted he had better not behave like a
child now. Everybody must allow they are great _fools_ for behaving so
to him; they will repent it."[311] Lady Sarah's view of the situation
was right: the ministers had over-reached themselves, and their attempts
to reduce the King to a cypher forced him in self-defence to make a
further desperate effort to shake off the galling yoke. The time was
propitious: the members of the administration were quarrelling among
themselves, and their handling of the "Weaver's Riots" gave proof to the
country of their incapacity. Yet Grenville apparently never dreamt that
his position was assailable. "The excessive self-conceit of Grenville,
that could make his writers call him--if he did not write it
himself--the greatest minister this country ever saw, as well as his
pride and obstinacy, established him," Lord Holland wrote to George
Selwyn on August 4. "It did not hurt him that he had a better opinion of
himself than he, or perhaps anybody else ever deserved. On the contrary,
it helped him. But when the fool said upon that--'the King cannot do
without me,' _hoc nocuit_."
[311] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
The Duke of Cumberland again undertook the charge of the negotiations,
and renewed the overtures to Pitt, who this time came to town, and on
June 19 was with the King for two hours, a fact that became known to
Lord Sandwich. Grenville, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Halifax were in
the country, and Sandwich, alarmed, pressed Grenville to return to town,
which, however, the Prime Minister declined to do. "When I took leave of
the King I asked his permission to stay in the country till Thursday
next, which he granted to me," he wrote. "My return to town before that
time, uncalled for, will have the appearance of a desire to embarrass
the arrangement which he is now endeavouring to form, and which I need
not tell you will come on, or go off, just the same whether I am there
or not; as the King would not in the present situation communicate it to
me, and, without that, I certainly should not trouble him on the
subject."[312]
[312] _Grenville Papers._
On the 22nd inst. Pitt was closeted with the King for three hours, and
it seemed as if he would take office, as, indeed, he might have done if
left to himself. "Now Mr. Pitt and the King, and the Duke and the King
have long conferences every day. What they will do no mortal can tell,
but it's _supposed_ that George Grenville and Mr. Pitt are very well
together, as Lord Temple has made it up with him, and therefore that
they won't come in to turn out Mr. Grenville and the present
administration."[313] Lord Temple, however, who cherished a desire that
"the brothers"[314] should form a government of their own, would not
accept office, whereupon Pitt informed the King he was not prepared to
form a cabinet. This he did reluctantly, and it is said, remarked sadly
to Lord Temple:
"_Exstinxti me, teque, soror, populumque patremque Sidonios,
urbemque tuam._"[315]
[313] Lady Sarah Bunbury to Lady Susan O'Brien, June 22, 1765.
[314] Pitt, Lord Temple, and George Grenville.
[315] Virgil: _AEneid, IV_, 682. It is rendered in Pitt's translation:
"You, by this fatal stroke, and I, and all
Your senate, people, and your country, fall."
"All is now over as to me, and by a fatality I did not expect," Pitt
wrote to Lady Stanhope on July 20. "I mean Lord Temple's refusing to
take his share with me in the undertaking. We set out to-morrow morning
for my seat at Burton Pynsent in Somersetshire, where I propose, if I
find the place tolerable, to pass not a little of the rest of my
days."[316] In the meantime, however, and as a last resource, the Duke
of Cumberland turned to the Rockingham Whigs, and, after much
negotiation, on July 10, Lord Rockingham accepted office.
[316] _Chatham Correspondence._
END OF VOL. I
_Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd. Bath._
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
The complete index to this volume will be found in "Farmer George,
Volume 2", Project Gutenberg e-book number 39981.
In the plain-text version of this book, footnotes have been moved to the
end of the paragraph in which the footnote tag appears.
Illustrations have been moved to the nearest appropriate paragraph
break.
The author's spelling and punctuation have been left as in the original
printed volume, with the following exceptions:
Obvious typographical errors and printer errors have been corrected
without comment.
From the list of errata on page 317 of Farmer George Vol. 2, one
change has been made to this text: On page 223, the name "Quirk" has
been changed to "Quick".
To correspond with the author's usage, in footnote number [195] the
name "Germains" was changed to "Germaine" in the phrase "Lord George
Germaine".
End of Project Gutenberg's Farmer George, Volume 1, by Lewis Melville