LONDON
IN
THE JACOBITE TIMES
VOL. II.
LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
LONDON
IN
THE JACOBITE TIMES
BY
Dᴿ DORAN, F.S.A.
AUTHOR OF ‘TABLE TRAITS’ ‘QUEENS OF THE HOUSE OF HANOVER’
‘THEIR MAJESTIES’ SERVANTS’ ETC.
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. II.
[Illustration: colophon]
LONDON
RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, NEW BURLINGTON STREET
Publishers in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen
1877
_All rights reserved._
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND VOLUME.
[Illustration: decorative line]
CHAPTER I.
(1724-’25-’26-’27.)
PAGE
Loyal and Disloyal Printers――Sacheverel――His Death――A new
Toast――Bolingbroke――Bolingbroke’s Adversaries――In the
Lords’ House――Denunciations against him――An Epigram――
Fresh Intrigues――Political Writers――Wharton, Boasting――
Prince William, Duke of Cumberland――In Kensington
Gardens――Seaforth’s Pardon――Robert Macgregor Campbell――
Rob Roy’s Letter to Wade――Rob Roy in Newgate――Rob Roy
in London――A Note of Alarm――Patriotic Jacobites――
Voltaire――The New Reign――Coronation――Prince Frederick 1
CHAPTER II.
(1728 to 1732.)
Mist’s Journal――Lockhart of Carnwath――George II. and Lockhart――
The Jacobite Cause――Character of the House of Commons――The
King and Queen――Atterbury weary of Exile――The Prince of
Wales at Church――The Morals and Manners of the Time――
Atterbury, on Mist――Thomson’s ‘Sophonisba’――Cibber made
Poet Laureate――Jacobite Hearne――A Jacobite Threat――
Difficulties in Professional Life――Death of Defoe――‘Fall
of Mortimer’――Duels and Sermons――Young Lord Derwentwater――
A Standing Army――The Duke’s Grenadiers――General Roguery――
Death of Atterbury――Burial of Atterbury――At Scarborough――
Notorious Jacobites――The Earl of Derwentwater 27
CHAPTER III.
(1733 to 1740.)
Approaching Storm――Wyndham in Parliament――Political Sermon――
Stormy Debates――The Young Chevalier――Lord Duffus――The
Calves’ Head Club――The Calves’ Head Riot――The ‘30th of
January’――Objectionable Toasts――Foster, in the Old Jewry――
The Queen and the Artist――Chesterfield’s Wit――Scene in
Westminster Hall――Jacobites and Gin-Drinkers――The Stage
fettered――Fear of the Pretender――Walpole, on Jacobites――
Curious Discussion――Safety of the Royal Family――‘Agamemnon’――
The King, in Public――Political Drama――Henry Pelham and the
Jacobites――Jacobite Prospects――Death of Wyndham 55
CHAPTER IV.
(1741 to 1744.)
Incidents in Parliament――Party Characteristics――On Hounslow
Heath――Tories not Jacobites――Condition of Parties――In
Leicester Fields――Awaking of Jacobites――Chesterfield’s
Opinions――King and Elector――Highland Regiment in London――
Desertion of the Men――March of the Deserters――The
Highlanders at Oundle――Military Execution――Threatened
Invasion――Confusion――Preparations――Declaration of War――
Letter from Hurd――Public Feeling――Lady M. W. Montague――
Carte, the Nonjuror――Carte’s History of England――Various
Incidents――Lady Nithsdale 82
CHAPTER V.
(1745.)
‘Tancred and Sigismunda’――Political Drama――The young Chevalier――
Feeling in London――Hopes and Fears――Horace Walpole’s Ideas――
Divisions in Families――Court and City――Varying Opinions――
London Wit――The Parliament――The Radcliffes――The London
Jacobites――The Venetian Ambassador――Monarch and Ministers――
News in private Letters――The London Trainbands――Scenes at
Court――The King’s Speech to the Guards――Aspects of Society――
French News of London――Anxiety and Confidence――Johnson and
Lord Gower――Bolingbroke 108
CHAPTER VI.
(1746.)
War Criticism――Breaking an Officer――Rebel Prisoners――London
Mobs――Ambassadors’ Chapels――The Havoc of War――Flying
Reports――News of Culloden――A popular Holiday――Carlyle and
Smollett――‘Tears of Scotland’――Indignation Verses 133
CHAPTER VII.
(1746.)
The Players――Sadler’s Wells and the New Wells――Culloden on the
Stage――Mrs. Woffington――The Press, on Culloden――Savagery
and Satire――The Caricaturists――Pseudo-Portrait of Charles
Edward――The Duke of Ormond――Burial of Ormond――The Question
of Inhumanity――Instigators of Cruelty――The Prisoners in
London――The Duke in Aberdeen――Looting――The Duke and his
Plunder――A Human Head――‘Sweet William’――Flattery 146
CHAPTER VIII.
(1746.)
Colonel Towneley――King’s Evidence――Towneley’s Trial――Conviction――
Captain Fletcher――The Manchester Officers――‘Jemmy Dawson’――
The Jacobite Press――The Condemned Jacobites――Painful
Partings――Within Prison Walls――The Last Morning――Via
Dolorosa――At Kennington Common――Behaviour――Execution――Heads
and Bodies――Other Trials――A Mad Jacobite――Sir John
Wedderburn ‘Bishop’ Coppock 166
CHAPTER IX.
(1746.)
At the Whipping Posts――In Westminster Hall――Preparations for
the new Trials――The Lord High Steward――The Spectators’
Gallery――Kilmarnock and Cromartie――Balmerino――The
Prosecution――Balmerino and Murray――‘Guilty, upon my
Honour!’――Kilmarnock’s Apology――Cromartie’s Plea――
Balmerino’s Defence――Balmerino’s Conduct――George Selwyn――
Kilmarnock’s Principles――The Principles of Balmerino――
Leniency of the Government 188
CHAPTER X.
(1746.)
The Duke at Vauxhall――Opinion in the City――In the Tower――Lord
Cromartie――Lord Kilmarnock――On Tower Hill――The Executions――
Charles Radcliffe――The Trial――Mr. Justice Foster――Conduct
of Radcliffe――To Kennington Common――Cibber’s ‘Refusal’――
Execution of Radcliffe――Lovat’s Progress――Hogarth’s
Portrait of Lovat――Arrival at the Tower――Rebels and
Witnesses――Tilbury Fort――French Idea――A London Elector’s
Wit――Trial of Lovat――Scene in Westminster Hall――Father
and Son――The Frasers――Murray of Boughton――Murray’s
Evidence――Cross Examination――The Verdict――Gentleman
Harry――The Death Warrant――Execution――George Selwyn――Lovat’s
Body――The White Horse, Piccadilly――Jacobite Toasts――The
Earl of Traquair――Plotting and Pardoning――Æneas Macdonald――
The Countess of Derwentwater――Sergeant Smith――The
Jacobite’s Journal――Carte’s History of England――Hume’s
‘History’――Jacobite Johnson――Johnson’s Sympathies――Flora
Macdonald――Flora’s Sons 207
CHAPTER XI.
(1748 to 1750.)
Depreciation of the Stuarts――The Government and the Jacobites――
Enlargement of Prisoners――In the Park and on the Mall――The
Statue in Leicester Square――An Eccentric Jacobite――Gloomy
Reports――The Haymarket Theatre――Treasonable Pamphlets――
Murray and Lord Traquair――Political Meeting――Dr. King’s
Oration――The Earl of Bath――The Laureate’s Ode――The Jacobite
Muse――Prisons and Prisoners――‘Defender of the Faith’――News
for London 256
CHAPTER XII.
(1751 to 1761.)
Death of Great Personages――The New Heir to the Throne――Lord
Egmont on Jacobites――In both Houses――Jacobite Healths――The
Royal Family――Parliamentary Anecdotes――Attempt to make
‘Perverts’――Dr. Archibald Cameron――Before the Council――Trial
of Cameron――The Doctor’s Jacobitism――Charles Edward, a
Protestant――Cameron’s Creed――The Last Victim――In the
Savoy――A Scene at Richardson’s――Cameron’s Case――A Minor
Offender――Suspicion against the Duke――The Anti-Jacobite
Press――The City Gates 275
CHAPTER XIII.
(1751 to 1761.)
The old Chevalier and the Cardinal――Roman News in London
Papers――A Son of Rob Roy――Jacobite Paragraphs――Hume’s
‘History’――At Rome――Hopes and Interests――Illness of
the old Chevalier――Accession of George III.――King and
People――Charles Edward at Westminster 298
CHAPTER XIV.
(1744 to 1761.)
Charles Edward in Manchester――Miss Byrom’s Diary――The Visit
in 1748――The Visit in 1750――Dr. King and the Chevalier――
Memoranda――Further Memoranda――Charles Edward’s Statement――
The Visit in 1752-3――Credibility of the Stories――Conflicting
Statements――At the Coronation――At the Banquet――George and
Charles Edward――A Disqualification――The Protestantism of
Charles Edward――Foundation of the Story 310
CHAPTER XV.
(1761 to 1775.)
State of London――Good Feeling――A Jacobite Funeral――Dr. Johnson’s
Pension――Johnson’s View of it――His Definition of a Jacobite――
Death of the Duke of Cumberland――Death of the old Chevalier――
Funeral Rites――George III. and Dr. Johnson――Johnson, on
George III.――Johnson’s Pension opposed――A 30th of January
Sermon――Debate on the Sermon――Marriage of Charles Edward――
Walpole, on the Marriage――The Last Heads on Temple Bar――
Dalrymple’s ‘Memoirs’――Walpole’s Anti-Jacobitism――Anti-
Ultramontanism――‘The Happy Establishment’――Garrick’s
Macbeth 328
CHAPTER XVI.
(1776 to 1826.)
A Plebiscite for the Stuarts――The Last of the Nonjuring
Bishops――The Jacobite Muse――Jacobite Johnson――Boswell on
Allegiance――A Jacobite Actress――Burns’s ‘Dream’――Burns
on the Stuarts――The Count of Albany――Robert Strange――
Strange’s Adventures――Strange in London――New Hopes――Strange
at St. James’s――The Jacobite Knighted――Sir Robert and Lady
Strange――Death of Charles Edward――The Countess of Albany
at Court――In the House of Lords――The Countess, on English
Society――Hanoverian Jacobites――Jacobite Ballads――‘Henry
the Ninth’――Hume’s History of the Rebellion――A Jacobite
Drama――The Drama Revised――Satirical Ballad――Reversal of
Attainders――Debate in the Commons――A Transpontine Play――
The Body of James the Second――Ceremony at St. Germain――
Something New 351
CHAPTER XVII.
VICTORIA.
Old Jacobite Titles――More Restorations――The Cromartie Title――
Titles under Attainder――Fitz-Pretenders――Admiral Allen’s
Son and Grandsons――Working through Literature――The
Romance of the Story――‘Red Eagle’――‘Tales of the Last
Century’――The Lever of Poetry――Poetical Politics――The
Black Cockade――The Allens in Edinburgh――The Succession
to the Crown――A Derwentwater at Dilston――Descent of the
Claimant――Obstacles in Pedigrees――John Sobieski Stuart――
The elder Son of ‘Red Eagle’――Stuart Alliances――Fuller
Particulars――The Stuart-d’Albanies――Jacobite Lord Campbell――
Lord Campbell, on old Judgments――Time’s Changes――At Chelsea
and Balmoral 385
[Illustration: Decorative banner]
LONDON
IN
THE JACOBITE TIMES.
[Illustration: decorative line]
CHAPTER I.
(1724-’25-’26-’27.)
[Sidenote: _LOYAL AND DISLOYAL PRINTERS._]
[Illustration: Drop-A] singular illustration of the still partially
troubled times which followed is furnished by a proceeding of Samuel
Negus, printer. In 1724 he published a list of all the printers
then exercising their craft in London, and he most humbly laid it
before Lord Viscount Townshend; no doubt, for his guidance. The list
is divided into four parts. The first consists of those ‘known to
be well affected to King George.’ There are thirty-four of these
ultra-loyal fellows, with Negus, of course, among them. The second
list is headed ‘Nonjurors;’ in this, three names are entered, one
of which is ‘Bowyer.’ In the third list, headed, ‘said to be High
Flyers,’ there are two and thirty names; among them are found Alderman
Barber (the friend of Swift, of Bolingbroke and Pope), Richardson (the
novelist), and Mist (the Jacobite and something more!). The fourth
list consists of three names, ‘Roman Catholics.’ Negus was probably
a malicious though loyal busy-body. His list harmed neither Nonjuror
nor High Flyer. When, in 1729, Mr. Speaker Onslow was instrumental
in procuring for Bowyer the printing of the votes of the House of
Commons, an alarmed and loyal Whig asked Mr. Speaker if he was aware
that he was employing a Nonjuror. ‘I am quite sure of this,’ said
Onslow, ‘I am employing a truly honest man.’ There was no lack of them
among Nonjurors, and it is pleasant to find that even the High Flyers
came soon to be looked upon by reasonable Whigs as honourable men. In
1732 Alderman Barber was elected by his fellow citizens Lord Mayor of
London; and he was the first printer who enjoyed that dignity. This is
the more remarkable, as poor Mrs. Manley, mistress of the alderman’s
house and of the alderman, had bitterly satirised the Whig Ministry in
her ‘New Atalantis.’ But the lady was now dead, and the High-Flying
Barber lost nothing by his old Jacobite opinions.
[Sidenote: _SACHEVEREL._]
In the year 1724, the Nonjurors lost one who had been their foremost
man till he took the oath of allegiance; namely Sacheverel. That
act of homage to Brunswick was never forgotten or forgiven by the
Jacobites. When Sacheverel died in the spring of 1724, Hearne could
only acknowledge his boldness and good presence. ‘He delivered a thing
better than a much more modest man, however preferable in learning,
could do.’ Hearne sarcastically calls Sacheverel a ‘but,’ and says the
best thing this _but_ ever printed was the speech at his trial, ‘which
was none of his own, but was penned by Dr. Francis Atterbury.’ Hearne’s
hardest hit at this recreant parson is to be found in the following
words: ‘He was but an indifferent scholar, but pretended to a great
deal of honesty, which I could never see in him, since he was the
forwardest to take the oaths, notwithstanding he would formerly be so
forward in speaking for, and drinking the health of, King James III.’
[Sidenote: _HIS DEATH._]
The once famous and audacious Nonjuror, the friend of Addison when both
were young together, lost caste with the Jacobites without gaining the
esteem of the Whigs. Mist’s High-Flying ‘Weekly Journal,’ of which
Sacheverel was once the Magnus Apollo, recorded his death and burial
with no more ceremony than if he had been an ordinary alderman of no
particular political colour. Perhaps this great reserve showed that
sureties binding Mist to keep the peace were not mere formalities. Not
so with Read and his Whig ‘Weekly.’ On Saturday, June 20, Sacheverel
received therein this charitable notice: ‘Yesterday night was buried,
at St. Andrew’s, Holborn, Dr. Henry Sacheverel, whose virtues are too
notorious to be enlarged upon. One of his most conspicuous excellences
for many years last past was that he got his living in the high road
to――which though through great Mercy he escaped _here_, yet some
people are so very censorious as to judge,――but this we look upon to
be barbarous and unchristian, and we say we _hope the best_, and yet
we heartily wish our Hopes were a little better grounded. However, as
there is a good old saying, _De mortuis nil nisi bonum_, _i.e._ “If you
speak of the dead, speak in their praise,” and not being able, upon the
strictest enquiry, to find the least commendable circumstance relating
to the Deceased, from his cradle to his coffin, we choose rather to be
silent than uncivil.’
The doctor seemed to recall his oath of allegiance, when he made a
bequest in his will of 500_l._ to Atterbury. It was an approval, as far
as the sum went, of the efforts of the ex-prelate to dethrone George
I., and to bring in a Popish sovereign, who was not at all reluctant
to promise especial favours to the Church of England! That Atterbury
was watching events in London is now known, from his correspondence.
In one of his letters from Paris to the Chevalier or ‘King,’ he refers
with vexation to the conciliatory course the Government in London was
adopting towards the Jacobites: ‘They are beginning,’ he says, ‘with
Alderman Barber on this head, and have actually offered him his pardon
here for 3,000_l._, which it shall not be my fault, if he accepts.’ The
ex-Jacobite alderman ‘went over,’ in spite of the Jacobite ex-bishop.
The 30th of January sermons (1725) before the Lords, in the Abbey, and
the Commons, in St. Margaret’s, had now almost ceased to be political.
The former was preached by Waugh, Bishop of Carlisle, from the Book of
Chronicles; the latter, by the Rev. Dr. Lupton, from 1 Samuel xii. 25,
a text which had been much preached on by expounders on both sides:
‘If ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your
king.’
[Sidenote: _A NEW TOAST._]
Against the king in possession, the Jacobites now and then flung
pointless darts. Mist’s Journal uttered sarcasms against the
Westminster mounted Train Bands, complimenting the most of them for
not tumbling out of their saddles. The same semi-rebel paper recorded
with satisfaction, as a sign of the Duke of Wharton’s principles, that
if the little stranger ‘expected by the Duchess, proved to be a boy,
his name should be James; if a girl, Clementina;’ or, in other words,
the child was to be called after the King or Queen of England, _de
jure_. Not long after, the bold and roystering London Jacobites were
rapturously drinking a health, which was given by one guest in the
form of ‘Henry,’ to which another added, ‘Benedict,’ a third named
‘Maria,’ and a fourth raised his glass to ‘Clement.’ In this form, they
greeted the birth of the second son of the Chevalier de St. George.
Some ventured to (prematurely) speak of him as Duke of York. The Whigs
looked upon this birth with more or less indifference; and their papers
contain no unseemly jests on the occasion.
[Sidenote: _BOLINGBROKE._]
But the especial attention of Londoners was drawn to more important
matters. Whigs and Jacobites looked with equal interest to the attempt
made by Bolingbroke’s friends to enable him to succeed to his father’s
estates, notwithstanding the Act of Attainder to the contrary. Leave
to bring in a Bill, with this object, was asked by Lord Finch, in the
Commons, on April 20th, with the sanction of king and Government, whom
Bolingbroke had petitioned to that effect. Lord Finch explained that
the petitioner had been pardoned by his Majesty, for past treason,
but that even a royal pardon could not ride over an Act of Attainder,
to the extent asked, without an Act of Parliament. The petitioner had
fully acknowledged his former great guilt, and had made promises, on
which his Majesty confidently relied, of inviolable fidelity for the
future. Walpole gave great significance to the words uttered in support
by saying, ‘He has sufficiently atoned for all past offences,’ Then Mr.
Methuen, of Corsham, Wilts, sprang to his feet to oppose the motion and
denounce the traitor. He did both in the most violent and unmeasured
terms. He lost no point that could tell against Bolingbroke, from the
earliest moment of his political career,――ever hostile to true English
interests,――down to that of the asking leave to absolve the traitor
from the too mild penalties with which his treason had been visited.
No expiation could atone for his crimes; and no trust could be placed
in his promises. ◆[Sidenote: _BOLINGBROKE’S ADVERSARIES._]◆ One after
the other, Lord William Paulet, Arthur Onslow, Sir Thomas Pengelly and
Gybbon smote Bolingbroke with phrases that bruised his reputation like
blows on mail from battle-axes. They were all, however, surpassed in
fierceness and argument by Serjeant Miller, who branded Bolingbroke
as a traitor to the king, country, and Government; a villain who,
if favoured as he now asked to be, would betray again those whom
he had betrayed before, if he found advantage in doing so. Serjeant
Miller said that he loved the king, country, and ministry more than he
loved himself, and that he hated their enemies more than they did. To
loosen the restraints on Bolingbroke was only to facilitate his evil
action, and so forth; but Jacobite Dr. Freind, who had tasted of the
Tower, extolled the royal clemency to Bolingbroke; and the assurance
of Walpole that the traitor had rendered services which expiated all
by-gone treason, weighed with the House, and the condoning Bill was
ultimately passed, by 231 to 113.
[Sidenote: _IN THE LORDS HOUSE._]
Public interest in London was only diverted for a moment from this
measure, by the debate in the House of Lords, in May, on another Bill
(from the Commons) for disarming the Highlanders in Scotland, which
ended in the Bill being carried. Five peers signed a protest against
it, partly on the ground that England now enjoyed ‘that invaluable
blessing――a perfect calm and tranquility;’ that the Highlanders now
manifested no spirit of disorder, and that it became all good patriots
‘to endeavour rather to keep them quiet than to make them so.’ The
comment in all the Whig circles of London, as they heard of the
protest, was to repeat the names of those who subscribed it,――Wharton,
Scarsdale, Lichfield, Gower, and Orrery. Of them, the first was almost
openly in the Chevalier’s service, and the other four were thorough
Jacobites. But the interest in this Bill was as nothing compared
with that renewed by the Bill (sent up by the Commons) which passed
the House of Lords on May 24th, 1725, by 75 to 25, for restoring
Bolingbroke to his estates. The protest against the Act was signed by
the Earls of Coventry and Bristol, Lords Clinton, Onslow, and Lechmere.
The articles of the protest are among the most explicit and interesting
ever issued from Westminster, and are to this effect:――
The lands and other property of ‘the late Viscount Bolingbroke’ had
been forfeited through his treason, and had been appropriated to public
uses; therefore, say the protesters, it would be ‘unjust to all the
subjects of this kingdom, who have borne many heavy taxes, occasioned,
as we believe, in great measure by the treasons committed, and the
rebellion which was encouraged by this person, to take from the public
the benefit of his forfeiture.’
The treasons he committed were of ‘the most flagrant and dangerous
nature’; they were ‘fully confessed by his flight from the justice
of Parliament,’ and they were indisputably demonstrated by his new
treasons when he ‘entered publicly into the counsels and services of
the Pretender, who was then fomenting and carrying on a rebellion
within these kingdoms for the dethroning his Majesty, into which
Rebellion many subjects of his Majesty, Peers and Commoners, were
drawn, as we believe, by the example or influence of the late Lord
Bolingbroke, and for which reason many Peers and Commoners have since
been attainted and some of them executed, and their estates become
forfeited by their attainder.’
[Sidenote: _DENUNCIATIONS AGAINST HIM._]
What services Bolingbroke had rendered to King George, since he was
a convicted traitor, were not publicly known, but might justly be
suspected. He had never expressed the slightest sorrow for his treason;
and there was no security that he might not again betray the king and
country, for no trust could be placed in his most solemn assurances.
Supposing recent services justified reward, it was not such reward as
could not be recalled. Persons who had rendered similar services had
been rendered dependent on the Government for the continuance of those
rewards, and so it should be, they thought, with Bolingbroke. The five
peers further remarked that no pardon under the Great Seal could be
pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons, and that Bolingbroke had,
in fact, no right or title to the benefits conferred upon him by a Bill
which restored him to his estates, in spite of the Act of the Attainder.
The public discussed these matters with interest, and (except a few
Jacobites) thought nothing of plots and pretenders. Atterbury, however,
was as pertinaciously working as ever, to see his royal master James
crowned at Westminster. In one of the numerous letters written by him
this year, Atterbury suggests that James shall express his hopes to the
Duke of Bourbon, then at the head of the French Government, that if the
juncture at present will not suffer the Duke to do anything directly
for him, yet at least that he will not so far act against him as to
endeavour to draw off others from their designs and determinations to
serve him――the King, James III.
[Sidenote: _AN EPIGRAM._]
Among the ex-bishop’s friends in London was the Rev. Samuel Wesley,
brother of John. The Tory journal ‘Mist’ had said of him that Mr.
Wesley had refused to write against Pope, on the ground that ‘his best
patron’ had a friendship for the poet. Thence arose the question,
‘Who _was_ his best patron?’――a question which was answered by an
epigrammatist (by some said to be Pope himself), who suggested that the
patron was either the exiled Jacobite Bishop Atterbury, or the Earl of
Oxford.
Wesley, if Wesley ’tis they mean,
They say, on Pope would fall,
Would his best patron let his pen
Discharge his inward gall.
What patron this, a doubt must be,
Which none but you can clear,
Or Father Francis ’cross the sea,
Or else Earl Edward here.
That both were good, must be confest,
And much to both he owes,
But, which to him will be the best,
The Lord (of Oxford) knows.
[Sidenote: _FRESH INTRIGUES._]
The king’s speech, on opening Parliament in January, 1726, rather
alarmed London (which was not dreaming of the recurrence of evil
times), by assurances that in the City and in foreign Courts intrigues
were then being carried on for the restoration of the Pretender.
Additions to the armed force of the realm were suggested as advisable.
A suspicion arose that in this suggestion the defence of Hanover from
foreign aggression was more thought of than that of England against
the Chevalier. However, the Lords dutifully replied:――
‘We can easily believe that at such a juncture, new schemes and
solicitations are daily making by the most profligate and abandoned of
them (the enemies of the King and Government), to revive the expiring
cause of the Pretender; all which, we assure ourselves, can have no
other effect than to hasten his destruction and the utter ruin of all
his perjured adherents.’
The majority in the Commons, not a whit less loyal, used similar terms,
adding, with reference to traitors near St. James’s: ‘The disaffected
and discontented here have not been less industrious by false rumours
and suggestions to fill the minds of the people with groundless fears
and alarms, in order to affect the public credit, and, by distressing
the government, give encouragement to the enemies of our peace.’
[Sidenote: _POLITICAL WRITERS._]
Two notable persons who had, in their several ways, filled people’s
minds with groundless alarms, now departed from the stage. On the
5th of February died the two great antagonistic news-writers of this
Jacobite time, Abel Roper and George Ridpath. The former was proprietor
of the Tory ‘Post Boy,’ the latter of the Hanoverian ‘Flying Post.’
Pope has pilloried both in the ‘Dunciad,’ and pelted them in an
uncomplimentary note. The Whig ‘Weekly Journal’ says of Abel, that in
the ‘Post Boy’ ‘he has left such abundant testimony for his zeal for
indefeasible hereditary right, for monarchy, passive obedience, the
Church, the Queen (Anne), and the Doctor (Sacheverel), that the public
can be no strangers to his principles either in Church or State.’
Ridpath, Ropers celebrated antagonist, had been obliged in 1711 to fly
to Holland, to escape the consequences of too severely criticising
Queen Anne’s Ministry. In exile, he wrote ‘Parliamentary Right
Maintained, or the Hanover Succession Justified.’ This was by way of a
confuting reply to the ultra-Jacobite work of Dr. Bedford, ‘Hereditary
Right to the Crown of England Asserted.’ Ridpath, having rendered such
good service to the Hanoverian succession, appeared in London, as soon
as George I., himself. He got his reward in an appointment to be one
of the Patentees for serving the Commissioners of the Customs, &c., in
Scotland, with stationery wares!
[Sidenote: _WHARTON, BOASTING._]
Ridpath was a sort of public intelligencer for the Government. It is
certain, on the other hand, that not only was the Government in London
well served by its own private ‘Intelligencers,’ but it was equally
well supplied through the folly of Jacobites at foreign Courts. From
the British Envoys at those Courts dispatches reached London, which
must have often made the Cockpit, where the Cabinet Ministers met,
joyous with laughter. For example, towards the end of April, Mr.
Robinson was reading a dispatch from Mr. Keen at Madrid, in which the
latter described the Duke of Wharton, then a fugitive, as ever drinking
and smoking; and such a talker in his cups as to betray himself, his
party, and their designs. Keen encouraged his visits, accordingly.
‘The evening he was with me he declared himself the Pretender’s Prime
Minister and Duke of Wharton and Northumberland. “Hitherto,” says he,
“my master’s interest has been managed by the Duchess of Perth and
three or four other old women who meet under the portal of St. Germain.
He wanted a Whig and a brick van to put them in the right train, and I
am the man. You may now look upon me, Sir Philip Wharton, Knight of the
Garter, and Sir Robert Walpole, Knight of the Bath, running a course,
and by God, he shall be hard pressed. He bought my family pictures, but
they will not be long in his possession; that account is still open.
Neither he nor King George shall be six months at ease, as long as I
have the honour to serve in the employ I am in.”’ Wharton was telling
the Duke of Ormond that his master did not love foxhunting, but that he
promised to go to Newmarket. To which Ormond answered, ‘he saw no great
probability of it on a sudden, but wished the Pretender might take such
care of his affairs that he might be able to keep his word.’
Besides a promise to go to Newmarket, there was shadowed forth another
promise this year, which was, or was not, performed some years
later――namely, the adhesion of the young Chevalier to the Church of
England. Probably from some follower of the exiled family was derived
the information, which was put into London newspaper shape in the
following fashion, in the month of July:――
‘The Chevalier de St. George is at his last shifts, for now his eldest
son is to be brought up in the principles of the Church of England. To
give a proof of which he was led by a Church at Rome, by his Governor,
who did not stop to let him kneel at the singing of the Ave Maria.’
[Sidenote: _PRINCE WILLIAM, DUKE OF CUMBERLAND._]
This announcement was made, probably, to keep warm the interest of
the Protestant Jacobites in the Stuart family generally, and in the
person, particularly, of young Charles Edward, of whose equivocal
Church-of-Englandism this is the equally equivocal foreshadowing. In
the same month, little Prince William was created Duke of Cumberland.
The future victor at Culloden was then five years old. The papers had
at an earlier period recorded how he had cut his teeth, and they now
noticed his military tendencies; but none could have conjectured how
these were to be applied subsequently, at Fontenoy, and on the field
near Inverness.
A simple act on the part of his father, the Prince of Wales, awoke
the Whig muse to sing his praise. During the absence of the king in
Hanover, a fire broke out in Spring Gardens. The Prince went down to
it, not as an idle spectator in the way of the firemen, but as an
active helper. This help was so effectively given as to induce a Whig
poet to put the popular feeling in rhyme:――
Thy guardian, blest Britannia, scorns to sleep,
When the sad subjects of his father weep.
Weak Princes, by their fears, increase distress,
_He_ faces danger, and so makes it less.
Tyrants, on blazing towers may smile with joy:
_He_ knows to _save_ is greater than _destroy_!
[Sidenote: _IN KENSINGTON GARDENS._]
When the king was this year in town, he risked his popularity among
the Whig mobile, by adding a considerable portion of Hyde Park to the
pretty but confined grounds――Kensington Gardens. There was an outcry,
but grumblers were informed that they should rather rejoice, seeing
that the whole would be laid out ‘after the fashion of the Elector of
Hanover’s famous gardens at Herrenhausen.’ The Jacobites wished the
Elector had never quitted that ancestral home of beauty. The present
generation may be congratulated that the King of England created such
another home of beauty here. It was, indeed, for himself and family:
the public were not thought of. A few peers and peeresses, with other
great personages, were allowed to have keys, in the absence of the
royal family; but, at the present time, the gardens have become the
inheritance of the nation; and the national heir may be proud of such a
possession.
It was there, in the autumn of the year, that two pleasant acts of
grace occurred. The Earl of Seaforth, attainted for his share in the
rebellion of 1715, was there, by arrangement, presented to the king.
The Jacobite peer went on his knees and confessed his treason. The
king granted him his pardon, and gave him his hand to kiss; but the
great Scottish earldom has never been restored to the noble house
of Mackenzie. A similar scene took place when Sir Hugh Paterson, of
Bannockburn, received the royal pardon.
[Sidenote: _SEAFORTH’S PARDON._]
Nevertheless, who was serving or betraying King George at the
Chevalier’s Court, or King James in London, is, among other official
secrets, locked up in State papers. One illustration of the state of
affairs in London was afforded, unpleasantly, to Atterbury, by the
pardon of Lord Seaforth. That Jacobite peer had been made a Marquis
by James III., and wished to be further made a Duke. At the same time
Seaforth was negotiating with the British Government for his pardon
and a grant out of his forfeited estate. Both were accorded, and the
ex-Jacobite became a courtier at St. James’s. Mr. F. Williams, the
apologist of Atterbury, says, that such Jacobites caused endless
anxiety to the ex-bishop, and that their heart was not in the cause:
all they had nearest at heart was their own pride, selfishness, and
vanity!
The above acts of grace increased the general goodwill which was
entertained towards the royal family. The Prince of Wales showed
especial tact in obtaining popular suffrage. When the water-pageant
of the Lord Mayor, Sir John Eyles, Bart., passed along the river, the
Prince and Princess of Wales, with the little Duke of Cumberland, stood
in the river-side gardens of old Somerset House, to see the procession
pass. It was not pre-arranged; but when the family group was seen, the
state barges pulled in towards the garden-terrace, and there the chief
magistrate offered wine to the prince who, taking it, drank to ‘The
Prosperity of the City of London.’ Colonel Exelbe, Chief Bailiff of
the Weavers, brought up the company’s state barge, as the others were
pulling out to the middle stream, and, say the daily chroniclers, ‘in a
manly, hearty voice, drank to the health of the Prince, the Princess,
and the little Duke.’ The prince delighted the weavers by drinking to
them ‘out of the same bottle.’
The autumn brought pleasant news to London, namely, that the
disarmament of the Highlands had been successfully accomplished by
General Wade. This brings, in connection with London, a well-known
personage on the stage.
[Sidenote: _ROBERT MACGREGOR CAMPBELL._]
Robert Macgregor, having been compelled to drop the prohited surname,
had taken that of Campbell, but he was familiarly known as Rob Roy. He
was in arms against King George at Sheriff Muir, but he betrayed the
Jacobite cause by refusing, at a critical moment, to charge and win
a victory for King James. Romance has thrown a halo round this most
contemptible rascal. He wrote to Wade, when the disarmament was going
on: ‘I was forced to take part with the adherents of the Pretender;
for, the country being all in arms, it was neither safe nor indeed
possible for me to stand neuter. I should not, however, plead my being
forced into this unnatural Rebellion against his Majesty, King George,
if I could not at the same time assure your Excellency, that I not
only avoided acting offensively against his Majesty’s forces, on all
occasions, but, on the contrary, sent his Grace the Duke of Argyle
all the intelligence I could, from time to time, of the strength and
situation of the rebels, which I hope his Grace will do me the justice
to acknowledge.... Had it been in my power as it was in my inclination,
I should always have acted for the service of his Majesty King George;
and the one reason of my begging the favour of your intercession with
his Majesty, for the pardon of my life, is the earnest desire I have
to employ it in his service, whose goodness, justice, and humanity are
so conspicuous to all mankind.’ This precious letter, signed Robert
Campbell, is quoted by Scott (Introduction to ‘Rob Roy,’ edit. 1831),
from an authentic narrative, by George Chalmers, of Wade’s proceedings
in the Highlands, which narrative is incorporated into the Appendix to
Burt’s ‘Letters from the North of Scotland.’ ◆[Sidenote: _ROB ROY’S
LETTER TO WADE._]◆ Scott remarks on the letter from Rob Roy to Marshal
Wade: ‘What influence his plea had on General Wade we have no means
of knowing.... Rob Roy appears to have lived very much as usual.’
The London newspapers show, on the contrary, that the usual tenour
of this thief and traitor’s life was very seriously interrupted. Of
the disaffected chiefs of clans who had been ‘out and active’ on the
Jacobite side in 1715, a good number at the time of the disarmament
were seized and brought to London, with intimation that their lives
would be spared. What became of them is told in the ‘Weekly Journal’
for January 24th, 1727, namely, that ‘His Majesty, with his usual
clemency, had pardoned the following Jacobites who had been convicted
capitally of high treason in the first year of his reign, for levying
war against him.’ The pardoned traitors were: ‘Robert Stuart of Appin,
Alexander Macdonald of Glencoe, Grant of Glenmorrison, Machinnin of
that Ilk, Mackenzie of Fairburn, Mackenzie of Dachmalnack, Chisholm of
Strathglass, Mackenzie of Ballumukie, MacDougal of Lorne,’ and two
others, more notable than all the rest, ‘James, commonly called Lord,
Ogilvie,’ and ‘Robert Campbell, _alias_ MacGregor, commonly called Rob
Roy.’ ◆[Sidenote: _ROB ROY IN NEWGATE._]◆ They had been under durance
in London, for it is added that ‘on Tuesday last, they were carried
from Newgate to Gravesend, to be put on shipboard for transportation
to Barbadoes,’ Rob Roy marching handcuffed to Lord Ogilvie through the
London streets, from Newgate to the prison barge at Blackfriars, and
thence to Gravesend is an incident that escaped the notice of Walter
Scott and of all Rob’s biographers. The barge load of Highland chiefs
and of some thieves seems, however, to have been pardoned, and allowed
to return home.[1]
The Highland ‘Bobadil,’ MacGregor, is said to have appeared publicly in
London, both in street and park, and that, as he was walking in front
of St. James’s Palace, the Duke of Argyle pointed him out to George I.,
or according to another version, George II.; and that at the sight, the
king declared, he had never seen a handsomer man in the Highland garb.
This was probably one of the floating stories of the time, lacking
foundation, save that a plaided Scotsman may have been seen near the
palace; thence came the story. ◆[Sidenote: _ROB ROY IN LONDON._]◆ With
a fictitious story of Rob’s exploits, the Londoners, however, were
familiar. This appeared in a history called the ‘The Highland Rogue.’
Scott describes it as ‘a catchpenny publication. In this book, Rob is
said to be a species of ogre with a beard of a foot in length; and his
actions are as much exaggerated as his personal appearance.’ It seems
to have been made up of details in which there was much inaccuracy and
still more invention. Seven years after the release from Newgate, Rob
Roy died at Innerlochlarig-beg, on the 28th of December, 1734. He was
buried in Balquhidder churchyard, half a dozen miles from where he
died, and he was, at the time of his death, sixty-three years and some
odd months old.
An honest man, one who served his country well, but who has not been
celebrated in romance like Rob Roy, was missed from the Southwark side
of the Thames, where his figure had been daily familiar for a long
period to the inhabitants, namely, Sir Rowland Gwyn. On the last Monday
in January, this venerable baronet died. The ultramontane Jacobites had
little respect for him. When Sir Rowland was M.P. for Radnor, in King
William’s reign, he brought in the Bill for settling the Protestant
Succession in the House of Hanover. For some time Sir Rowland was
our ‘Resident’ in Hanover; but he displeased Queen Anne’s Ministry,
withdrew to Hamburg, and did not return to England till the accession
of George I. After figuring in London for a time, hard circumstances
drove him to live in the Liberties of the King’s Bench, and there,
after having been familiarly known to, and diversely treated by, both
Whigs and Tories, the old ultra-Protestant Baronet died, somewhat
miserably.
[Sidenote: _A NOTE OF ALARM._]
The king blew a loud note of alarm, with regard to the Chevalier, on
the last occasion of the opening Parliament during his reign. Lord
Chancellor King read the royal speech, in which the announcement
was made that the Emperor and the King of Spain had entered into an
offensive alliance, the object of which was to place the Pretender
on the British throne and to destroy the established religion and
government. The Emperor’s representative in London, Von Palm, made
a bold comment on this speech. It was conveyed in a Latin letter to
his British Majesty, in which the writer impertinently stated that
there were many assertions in the speech which were misstatements,
meant truthfully, perhaps, but much strained to make them wear a
truthful appearance. Other assertions were (if well meant) based on
erroneous grounds; but the declaration that the Emperor had joined,
secretly or openly, with the King of Spain to effect the restoration
of the Stuarts, was denounced by Von Palm as an unmitigated falsehood.
For this audacity, the Imperial representative was ordered to leave
the kingdom. The envoy’s great offence had been made greater by the
publication of the Imperial Memorial (translated) in London, by the
Emperor’s order. This appeal to the nation against the sovereign
manifested a vulgar impudence on the part of his sacred, imperial,
and catholic Majesty which thoroughly disgusted the people of these
kingdoms. ◆[Sidenote: _PATRIOTIC JACOBITES._]◆ To the great honour of
the Jacobites in Parliament, they exhibited a true English spirit.
They became, in fact, for the first time, ‘his Majesty’s Opposition.’
Shippen and Wyndham, especially, in Parliament, supported by their
political colleagues, branded this ignoble attempt to put dissension
between king and people as one which touched the honour of the nation,
and which the nation would resent, to sustain the honour of its king.
If this display of spirit led some to believe that Jacobitism, as
a Stuart sentiment, was dead, the belief was erroneous. Soon after
Palm was compelled to leave the kingdom, an outrage was committed on
the recently erected double-gilt equestrian statue of George I., in
Grosvenor Square. The statue, which was ‘by Nost,’ according to the
papers, Van Ost was pulled down, horse and rider. The kings sword
was broken, his truncheon beaten out of his hands, his legs and arms
hammered off, and a significant hacking at his neck was a token of
beheading him in effigy. A gross libel was stuck to the pedestal; and
that unoccupied pedestal still remains as a monument of the Jacobite
virulence of the time. A reward of 100_l._ was offered in vain for the
discovery of the perpetrators.
[Sidenote: _VOLTAIRE._]
At this moment there was a Frenchman in London who was sufficiently
distinguished, even then, to have his name turned to account in a
partisan political paragraph,――Voltaire. The Jacobites were probably
not aware of Voltaire’s approval of the martyrdom of their king and
saint, Charles I. ‘On the 30th of January,’ said Voltaire, ‘every King
wakes with a crick in the neck.’ On January 28th, the ‘British Journal’
had the following well-turned paragraph: ‘Last week, M. Voltaire, the
famous French poet, who was banished from France, was introduced to
his Majesty who received him very graciously. They say he has received
notice from France not to print his Poem of the League, “La Henriade,”
a Prosecution still depending against him, by the Cardinal de Bissy, on
the Account of the Praises bestowed in that Book on Queen Elizabeth’s
behaviour in Matters of Religion, and a great many Strokes against the
Abuse of Popery, and against Persecution in Matter of Faith.’ This
allusion to religious liberty had, unconsciously, a startling comment.
While Voltaire was kissing the royal hand, a soldier was being ‘whipt’
in the Park, for being a Papist! He was neither the first nor the last
who suffered for no worse cause. At the same moment, the ultramontane
authorities in France were hanging men for belonging to the reformed
religion! What an excellent thing it is for Christian brethren to live
together in love and unity!
[Sidenote: _THE NEW REIGN._]
On the 3rd of June, the royal and imperial courts having become
reconciled, and peace seeming established among nations, the king set
out for Hanover. That day week he was lying dead on a sofa at Osnaburg.
A heavy supper and much cold melon, the night before, had done the work
which, as some thought, might prove a Jacobite opportunity. It proved
otherwise. A paragraph of a few lines in the newspapers, unencumbered
by any mourning border, told the people that a new reign had begun. The
old king was soon forgotten. The younger one and his queen, Caroline,
mourned officially, but they inaugurated their own accession, joyously.
It may be added, ‘wisely,’ too. Their water-pageants made the then
silver Thames glad and glorious. They went afloat in state, followed
by gay Court barges full of high-born ladies and gallant gentlemen.
The royal musicians in another vessel played the last new opera airs.
According to the tide, these great folk went up the river to Chelsea or
down to Shadwell. They received warm welcome whithersoever they went;
more particularly when the royal barge pulled in near the shore, and
the pleased occupants graciously took the flowers offered to them by
good people, who might be hanged before the month was out, for stealing
half of one of the nosegays. On these occasions, the broad river could
hardly be seen for the compact mass of boats, fearfully laden, that
drifted or were rowed upon it. As in the first George’s time, these
popular pageants continued afloat long after the moon was up. Often on
these occasions, the king and queen did not land at Whitehall, till
after ten had struck. There, the sedan chairs were in waiting, and with
one individual in each, gentlemen of the chamber and maids of honour
being carried in the rear, and torchbearers, if need were, flanking the
procession, the whole party were daintily lifted through the park to
St. James’s palace.
[Sidenote: _CORONATION._]
The coronation was to have taken place on the 4th of October. It was
put off for a week. At this postponement, people speculated on the
possibility of some Jacobite daring to take up the Champion’s gage.
The Jacobite that was really feared was named Spring Tide. An invasion
of Westminster Hall was both possible and probable; and thence, the
postponement for a week. On the 11th the ceremony was performed
with somewhat of maimed rites. The queen went in a close sedan to
Westminster, with the Lord Chamberlain and a Maid of Honour in hack
chairs; and they returned in the same unroyal fashion. There was no
interruption in Abbey or Hall, as timid people anticipated, and at
night all London was drunk, or nearly so, according to custom.
On the king’s birthday in October, there was a singular sort of
rejoicing in one part of the metropolis. There were Jacobite and other
prisoners in Newgate who ‘lay there for their fines,’――in fact, could
not be discharged for lack of cash to pay their fees. They celebrated
the day ‘by illuminating the windows of the gaol with candles;’ they
drank the health of their Majesties who would do nothing to deliver
them, the Judges who had condemned, and the Magistrates who had
previously committed them. They forgave everybody, and went to bed
almost as drunk as their keepers. It is due to the king however to say
that when he with the queen and royal family dined with the Mayor and
chief citizens in the Guildhall, he left a thousand pounds for the
relief of poor debtors. Some ‘state prisoners’ in Newgate were also
liberated on their recognizances.
[Sidenote: _PRINCE FREDERICK._]
In December, Frederick, Prince of Wales, in obedience to his father’s
commands, left Hanover suddenly in the night. He travelled to the
coast, and embarked on board an ordinary packet-boat from Holland to
Harwich. Thence, he went on his way posting to Whitechapel; there he
hired a hackney-coach, drove to St. James’s, and walked by the back
stairs to the queen’s room, where he was decently welcomed, though the
greeting was neither affectionate nor enthusiastic.
Outwardly, there was an appearance of tranquility; but there was
still an uneasiness in the Ministry, which seems to have led to the
establishment of a spy system in private society. In the Atterbury
correspondence of this year, there is a letter (written in December)
from the Duchess of Buckingham to Mrs. Morrice, in which that
illegitimate daughter of James II. says:――‘I have nothing passes in
my family I would give three farthings to hide, yet I am sure the
gossiping women and such kind of men send and invite my son to dinner
and supper, to pick something from him of what passes in conversation
either from me or my company.’
Walpole, however, had never experienced any difficulty in getting any
information he required from the Jacobite duchess, whom he duped and
flattered.
[1] Lord Ogilvie, son of the Earl of Airlie, did not assume
the title borne by his father, when the latter died in
1717; but when Lord Ogilvie died childless, in 1731, his
next brother, John, took the title of Earl. This John’s
son, David, Lord Ogilvie, not profiting by experience, fell
under attainder for acting with the Jacobites in arms, in
1745; but he too was ultimately pardoned by George III. The
hereditary honours, however, were not confirmed by Act of
Parliament till 1826, when David, who had called himself
Earl of Airlie, could thenceforth do so without question.
[Illustration: Decorative Banner]