| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Farmer George, Volume 2
Author: Melville, Lewis, 1874-1932
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Farmer George, Volume 2" ***
FARMER GEORGE
[Illustration: _From a caricature (circa 1810) 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. II
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN AND SONS, LTD.
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E. C. 1907
PRINTED BY
SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD
BATH.
(2002)
CONTENTS
VOL. II
CHAP. PAGE
XIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT 1
XIV. THE KING _versus_ ROCKINGHAM AND THE
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT 26
XV. THE "KING'S FRIENDS" 46
XVI. THE KING'S RULE 65
XVII. THE ROYAL FAMILY 98
XVIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. II. THE KING'S
WAR 126
XIX. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. III. THE LOSS OF
AMERICA 155
XX. CHARLES JAMES FOX AND WILLIAM PITT 173
XXI. THE KING'S MALADY 202
XXII. THE KING'S RECOVERY 222
XXIII. THE KING'S CHILDREN 237
XXIV. 1789-1806 251
XXV. LAST YEARS 263
AUTHORITIES 293
ILLUSTRATIONS
VOL. II
PAGE
GEORGE III _frontispiece_
CHARLES WATSON WENTWORTH, SECOND MARQUESS
OF ROCKINGHAM _facing_ 26
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM " 46
AUGUSTUS HENRY, DUKE OF GRAFTON " 61
FREDERICK NORTH, SECOND EARL OF GUILFORD " 72
ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL " 94
HENRY FREDERICK, DUKE OF CUMBERLAND " 102
WILLIAM HENRY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER " 102
MARIA, DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER " 104
ANNE, DUCHESS OF CUMBERLAND " 109
AUGUSTA, DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK " 120
CAROLINA MATILDA, QUEEN OF DENMARK " 120
CHARLES JAMES FOX " 180
"THE UNFORTUNATE ASS" " 183
"THE CAPTIVE PRINCE, OR, LIBERTY GONE MAD" " 186
EDMUND BURKE " 187
WILLIAM PETTY, EARL OF SHELBURNE " 189
WILLIAM PITT " 192
GEORGE III " 202
GEORGE III " 222
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND IN 1787 " 237
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1793 " 251
GEORGE III IN HIS STUDY " 287
QUEEN CHARLOTTE " 289
FARMER GEORGE
VOL. II
CHAPTER XIII
ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT
George Grenville will live in history as the statesman who took the
first step seriously to alienate the American colonies from the
motherland. He was, indeed, an unfortunate man, for he is doomed to be
remembered only by the magnitude of his mistakes. He attacked Wilkes,
and that demagogue at once took a place in the line of heroes who have
fought for the liberty of the subject against the oppression of the
Crown; he taxed a colony, and not long after England had to deplore the
loss of the United States: indeed, the only act that Dr. Hunt can find
to the credit of Grenville's judgment was the purchase, for £70,000 from
the Duke and Duchess of Athol, of the Isle of Man, which then for the
first time came completely under the royal authority.[1]
[1] _Political History of England, vol. X, 1760-1801._
Of course, the idea to tax the American colonies did not arise with
Grenville. It had been suggested by an American governor to Walpole,
who, however, was too wary to entertain the scheme. "No, it is too
hazardous a measure for me," he said drily; "I shall leave it to my
successors."[2] But those who guided the helm of State immediately after
him were also careful not to deal with the question except by ignoring
it, and consequently it was left for Grenville to undertake, under
pressure, it is said, from the King.[3] "I have heard it doubted whether
the measure originated with Mr. George Grenville," John Nicholls has
written. "I have heard it intimated the measure originated with the
King, that is to say, with the King's secret advisers; and that Mr.
Grenville acceded to the plan with considerable reluctance. I have no
means of knowing whether the measure originated with Mr. Grenville or
with the King. But from the unremitting obstinacy with which the King
persevered in the wish to impose taxes on the Colonies by a British
Parliament, every man must see that it may fairly be called the
favourite measure of his reign."[4]
[2] Coxe: _Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole_.
[3] "The idea to tax the colonies seems to have been the King's, and it
is said that Grenville believed that even the attempt must have alarming
consequences." Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_.
[4] _Recollections and Reflections._
It is an axiom of the constitution that the King can do no wrong, and
therefore, whoever proposed the scheme, the responsibility falls on the
shoulders of the responsible ministers of the Crown, who, on March 10,
1764, laid before Parliament resolutions for further regulating American
commerce, for the prevention of smuggling, and for the maintenance of a
small standing army of 10,000 men. Certain port dues were to be raised,
though they were to be counterbalanced by concessions in other
directions; but the increase in revenue from this source would not
suffice to maintain the garrison, the cost of which was estimated at
£350,000 a year; and it was proposed to raise £100,000 by an Act
requiring that all legal documents should have stamps.
This was, indeed, an innovation, for hitherto custom duties had been
imposed upon the colonists solely for the purpose of regulating trade:
the Stamp Act would raise revenues from them. There was something to be
said in defence of the Act, for though the late war had not been
undertaken solely as a defence of the colonies, yet a great expense had
been incurred by the operations necessary to repress the intrusions of
the French Canadians. Was it right, Grenville asked, that the colonies
should be defended by England, and should contribute nothing towards the
cost of their defence? To Grenville, who never looked ahead, this
seemed unreasonable, for, he contended, since the money raised in
America was to be spent there, there could be no justifiable objection
to the tax which it was proposed to impose; but, while he pointed out to
the colonial agents resident in London that the tax was reasonable and
an easy and equitable way to raise the money, he expressed his
willingness, if the colonists disliked the scheme, to abandon it if the
colonists would raise the money themselves in some other way. In his
desire to be conciliatory he decided to defer the introduction of the
Stamp Act until America had time to express an opinion.[5]
[5] The King's Speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 19,
1764, contained a reference to the measures respecting America. "The
wise regulations which have been established to augment the public
revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of my
crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great Britain,
call for my hearty approbation."
Early in 1765 the Stamp Act was introduced, and passed the House of
Commons with but forty dissentients. The debate, Burke says, was
extremely languid. Pitt, suffering from gout, was unable to be present,
but Conway[6] and Beckford protested against the measure, and Barré[7],
more far-seeing than most, denounced it in a startling speech, in which
he referred to the colonists as "sons of liberty." "Children planted by
your care!" he exclaimed. "No! your oppressions planted them in America;
they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable
country! They nourished by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of
them! They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your
defence." The Bill, which was to come into operation on November 1,
passed the House of Lords without a division, and the Royal Assent was
given on March 22.
[6] Henry Seymour Conway (1721-1795), lieutenant-general 1759, general
1772, field-marshal 1793.
[7] Colonel Isaac Barré (1726-1802).
The question, however, was in England "little understood and less
attended to";[8] and contemporary memoirs may be ransacked in vain for
any reference thereto. Even Walpole, whose letters form so detailed a
chronicle of events, dismissed it cavalierly. "There has been nothing of
note in Parliament," he wrote to Lord Hertford on February 12, 1765,
"but one slight day on the American taxes, which Charles Townshend
supporting, received a pretty heavy thump from Barré, who is the present
Pitt and the dread of all vociferous Norths and Rigbys, on whose lungs
depended so much of Mr. Grenville's power." The fact of the matter was
that England had not realized the importance of colonies, and
practically nothing was known in the motherland of her possession. "I
suppose you are violent for your American friends," Lady Sarah Bunbury,
so late as July 6, 1775, wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien. "I hope they are
good sort of people, but I don't love Presbyterians and I love the
English soldiers, so that I at present have a horror of those who use
them ill beyond the laws of war, which _scalping_ certainly is, and I
don't believe a word of the soldiers doing more than they ought; you
know one is always unreasonable when one's prejudiced."[9]
[8] Horace Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[9] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
Now the colonists were, of course, no more addicted to scalping and
other practices "beyond the laws of war" than the English; and the
knowledge that these and similar ideas prevailed at home undoubtedly
infused a feeling of bitterness into their love for the country of their
descent. Moreover, very naturally, they resented the almost ostentatious
display of their unimportance in the eyes of English ministers, which
became known to them when, to give one example from many, on the
resignation of the Duke of Newcastle, a whole closetful of American
despatches was found unopened.[10] They were English, and proud of
their descent, a hardy, frugal, independent folk, determined not to be
treated as a subject race; the last people in the world to brook
interference, and the first to remember that they were colonies, not
conquests, brothers, not slaves. They were simple in their habits and in
their ideas, and, in some places, Puritanical to excess--the stool of
repentance and the scold's gag were still in use, and they had
anticipated the publican's "black list"; but as a nation they were
thriving, and the towns of Boston, New York, Charleston, and
Philadelphia were so many convincing proofs of their increasing wealth.
[10] _Walpoliana._
"Lord Sussex told Sir Denis le Marchant that one of the
Under-Secretaries of that day said to him, 'Mr. Grenville lost America
because he read the American despatches, which his predecessors had
never done;' and so complete a sinecure was the Board of Trade then
considered, that a Colonel Bladen, one of the commissioners, happening
to apply himself to the duties of his office, the Colonel went
by the name of 'Trade,' while his colleagues were called 'The
Board.'"--Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The colonists were bound to the motherland by a strong feeling of
loyalty, by fear of the French-Canadians, whose aggressions they were
not strong (or perhaps, it is more accurate to say did not realize they
were strong) enough to repel, and also by the prevailing jealousy
between the different provinces which was so strong that Otis in 1765
declared that, if left to itself, "America would be a mere shambles of
blood and confusion." England's treatment of the colonies was not harsh,
but the tactless treatment aroused even more discontent than an
illiberal policy. The Americans were continually being irritated by the
attitude of the governors sent out by the committee of the Privy Council
responsible for colonial government, but paid by the provinces over
which they ruled, who did not understand them, made no attempt to learn
their habits, and showed little or no regard for the Assemblies in their
districts. "Such wrong-headed people," said one of these officers, "I
thank God I never had to do with before." The Americans, on the other
hand, complained of many of the people who were sent from England to
occupy official positions. "For many years past most of the places in
the gift of the Crown have been filled with broken Members of
Parliament, of bad, if any, principles, pimps, _valets-de-chambre_,
electioneering scoundrels, and even livery servants." General Huske
wrote about 1758: "In one word, America has been for many years made the
hospital of Great Britain for her decayed courtiers and abandoned,
worn-out dependants. I can point you out a chief justice of a province
appointed from home for no other reason than publicly prostituting his
honour and conscience at an election; a livery servant that is secretary
of a province, appointed from hence; a pimp, collector of a whole
province, who got this place of the man in power for prostituting his
handsome wife to his embraces and procuring him other means of
gratifying his lust. Innumerable are instances of this sort in places of
great trust."[11]
[11] Phillimore: _Life of Lyttelton_.
These annoyances were but pin-pricks, compared with many restrictions
placed upon their trade. There were laws ordaining that all trade
between the colonies should be carried in ships built in England or the
colonies, and forbidding the exportation of tobacco, sugar, cotton,
wool, and other articles except to England and her other colonies, as
well as a host of minor regulations, such as that in the woods of Maine
no tree with a diameter greater than two feet at a foot above ground
should be cut down, except to make a mast for a ship of the royal navy.
It is true that on the other hand no Englishman might buy tobacco that
was not grown in America or Bermuda, that the export trade to the
motherland was encouraged by bounties, and that owing to a system by
which duties were remitted on exportation to America they could
purchase continental goods more cheaply than they could be obtained in
England[12]; but these compensations did not make amends, in the
colonists' eyes, for the regulations that cramped their trade.
[12] William Hunt: _Political History of England, 1760-1801_.
These restrictions were much resented, and, as the volume of their
commerce increased, might well have goaded the colonists into rebellion,
had they not chosen the path of least resistance, and evaded them
through the simple device of smuggling. The Sugar Act of 1733, designed
in the interests of British merchants, forbidding the importation of
sugar and molasses from the French West Indies except on payment of a
prohibitive duty, aroused the ire of the Americans, who, realizing the
uselessness of petitions,[13] only plunged still deeper into the
contraband trade. This, in turn, angered those who had expected to
benefit by the Act, and many protests to enforce the law were made to
the home government, who turned a deaf ear to such representations until
after the Peace of Paris, when Bute sent revenue cutters to cruise off
the American coast. The officers of these ships were sworn to act as
revenue officers and smuggling was somewhat checked at the cost of a
vast deal of irritation at the summary methods of the sailors.
[13] Petitions from Provincial Assemblies were ignored by ministers at
home, and even memorials from such important states as Massachusetts and
New York, ordered by the King in Council to be laid before Parliament,
were suppressed.
The easy passage of the Stamp Act showed that Parliament did not
anticipate any considerable opposition from America, and even the agents
of the colonies, including Benjamin Franklin, who represented
Pennsylvania, thought that a small standing army was desirable, and
believed the colonies had no choice but to submit. The colonists
themselves, however, were not slow to express a very decided opposition
to the Act, and perhaps their objection was not the less vehement
because Grenville had prefaced the introduction of the resolutions by
stating that they were an "experiment towards further aid." That,
though, was but a trifle beside the main issue. Hitherto all taxes in
the colonies had been voted by the several Provincial Assemblies: now
was asserted the right of England to tax her colonies. Not to protest
was tacitly to admit the theory of the absolute dominion of the
motherland, and at once a stand was made against the infringement of the
doctrine that in free nations taxation and representation go hand in
hand. Some attempt was made in England to show that America was
virtually represented in Parliament, but this fallacy was exposed by
Pitt: "There is an idea in some minds that the colonies are virtually
represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire in this
kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation were augmented to
a greater number! Or, will you tell him that he is represented by any
representative of a borough? a borough which perhaps its own
representatives never saw. This is what is called _the rotten part of
the constitution_. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop it
must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation in this House is
the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of man; it does
not deserve a serious refutation."[14]
[14] _Speech during the Debate on the Address, January 14, 1766._
It was not denied by the colonists that the money raised in their
country would be spent in their country, but this was only a further
aggravation, for they resented the idea of a standing army, perhaps
remembering the abuses which in earlier days it had been called upon to
support in England. They contended that in time of war they had shown
themselves willing and able to raise a force at the request of the
governors, for which act they had been thanked by Parliament; and they
asserted that in times of peace their militia was sufficient to protect
them. The fact that the Stamp Act relaxed certain restrictions on their
trades weighed as nothing against a subsequent measure obliging them to
provide the British troops stationed amongst them with quarters and also
with fire, candles, beds, vinegar and salt. This was an invasion of the
privacy of their homes that, in time of peace, they would not endure.
"Sad news in the papers--G----d knows who's to blame!
The Colonies seem to be all in a flame,
This Stamp Act, no doubt, might be good for the Crown,
But I fear 'tis a pill that will never go down."[15]
[15] Anstey: _The New Bath Guide_.
No sooner did the colonists learn of the passing of the Stamp Act than a
cry of protest rang out from all over the country. James Otis, the
King's Advocate, resigned his official position in order to be at
liberty to denounce the action of the home Government, a task in which
he was ably seconded by John Adams; while Patrick Henry, whom Byron
described as
"the forest-born Demosthenes,
Whose thunder shook the Philip of the seas,"
introduced into the Virginian House of Burgesses a set of resolutions,
that the first settlers in that province had brought with them, and
transmitted to their posterity, all the privileges and immunities
enjoyed by the people of England, that they enjoyed the right of being
governed by their own assembly in the article of taxes and internal
police, and that the Stamp Act was illegal, unconstitutional and
unjust.[16] "Cæsar had his Brutus," Henry concluded a violent speech.
"Charles the First his Cromwell, George the Third"--here he was
interrupted by cries of "Treason" which disconcerted him for a moment
when he recovered himself and continued--"may profit by their example.
If this be treason make the most of it." It showed the temper of the
nation that Virginia, hitherto regarded as the most loyal state,
approved the resolutions by a large majority. The Governor immediately
dissolved the assembly, but, like all the acts of the English in America
at this time, this move was too late to be effective, for the
resolutions were regarded by other provinces as a precedent, and were
adopted by numerous other legislative bodies.
[16] Adolphus: _History of England_.
Boston, which had had experience of the utter futility of petitions to
the King and to Parliament, flamed at once into violence. The Assembly
there voted thanks to General Conway and Colonel Barré for their
opposition in the House of Commons to the Stamp Act, and ordered their
portraits to be placed in the Town Hall. On August 26 a mob destroyed
the Stamp Office, the Admiralty records, and the houses of public
officials who had given offence by accepting the objectionable Act.
Hutchinson, the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief-Justice of Massachusetts,
was maltreated; while Oliver, the Secretary of the province, who had
accepted the post of Stamp-Distributor, was hung in effigy on a tree in
the main street of the town, his house destroyed and himself compelled
by the threatening crowd to resign his new appointment, and to
swear--beneath the tree where his effigy swung in the breeze--that under
no circumstances would he ever resume it. The rioters were supported by
the overt sympathy of their countrymen. Mayhew, a popular preacher,
chose for the text of a sermon, "I would that they were even cut off
which trouble you"; the Governor, who had arrested a prominent merchant,
one of the ring-leaders of the disturbances, was compelled to release
him, under threat from the civic guard that otherwise they would disband
themselves; while some other imprisoned citizens were set free by the
mob, which forced the gaolers to surrender the keys.
November 1, when the Stamp Act came into operation, was kept as a day of
mourning. The bells were muffled and tolled and mock funerals passed
through the streets; copies of the Act were hawked through the towns
with the title of "England's Folly and the Ruin of America"; while the
newspapers appeared with a death's-head in place of the stamp which by
the new measure they had to bear. Boston was content to hoist half-mast
the colours of the shipping in its harbour, but Philadelphia spiked the
government guns in the town and in the barracks, and other towns
displayed their resentment in similar practical ways.[17]
[17] Almon: _Collection of Papers_.
It was found impossible, however, to distribute the stamps; nay, more,
it was impossible even to keep them, for the rioters kept strict watch
and as each box was landed, wrested it from the authorities, and
consigned it to the flames. The Governor of New Jersey had to request
that the stamps should be kept on a man-of-war, while on November 7,
Francis Bernard, the Governor of Massachusetts, informed Admiral Lord
Colville that such was the "increasing licentiousness" of the people
that he feared that he would be obliged to quit his post. The position
indeed was untenable. Every legal document to be valid required a stamp,
but there was no stamped paper to be had. The law courts could proceed
only with criminal cases, for which no stamps were required; and
business was at a standstill, until the Governors, realizing the danger
of allowing this state of affairs to continue, on the ground that it was
impossible to secure stamps, issued certificates to the merchants
permitting them to send their ships on voyages without complying with
the Act. Not content with this licence, however, the Council of
Massachusetts went so far as to enter a resolution in their journals
that it was lawful to transact business without stamps.[18] A more fatal
blow to the mother-country was delivered by the principal colonial
merchants, who agreed in solemn conclave to order no more goods from
England, to cancel all orders already given, and to send no more
remittances to England in payment of debts until the Stamp Act was
repealed--which last resolution could be excused only on the ground that
all is fair in war.
[18] Stedman: _History of the American War_; Andrews: _History of the
American War_.
Opposition in the colonies had been fanned by the change of government
at home. The news of Grenville's fall in July had been received with
delight, and the joy was intense when it became known that in the
succeeding Rockingham administration, Conway, who had opposed the Stamp
Act, had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the southern
department. The occurrences in America were, however, still viewed with
indifference in England, and the King in a letter to Conway, dated
December 5, was one of the first to sound the note of alarm. "I am more
and more grieved at the accounts of America. Where this spirit will end
is not to be said. It is undoubtedly the most serious matter that ever
came before Parliament; it requires more deliberation, candour, and
temper than I fear it will meet with."[19] The trouble was alluded to in
the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament on December 17. "Matters
of importance," it was said, "had lately occurred in some of the
colonies in America, which demand serious attention"; but such a
reference was resented by George Grenville and his supporters, who
attacked ministers for attempting to gloss over the recent events in
America as "matters of importance," when, as a matter of fact, they
contended, the colonies were in a state of rebellion.
[19] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
In spite of the conviction in America that General Conway would remove
the obnoxious tax, ministers were undecided what course to pursue, and
when at last they realized the seriousness of the position, they found
themselves face to face with only a choice between the disconcerting
tasks of repealing the Stamp Act or enforcing it at the point of the
sword. They were not given long to decide, for pressure was brought to
bear upon them by the great body of English merchants who were suffering
from the suspension of the American trade. Petitions were presented from
London, Liverpool, Glasgow and other manufacturing towns, pointing out
that the debts that America refused to discharge amounted to four
millions sterling--an eighth of the entire amount was owed to Glasgow
shippers by the states of Maryland and Virginia alone--that further
orders were withheld, and that consequently, artisans were thrown out of
work, and many merchants would shortly be reduced to bankruptcy. The
only remedy for this disastrous state of affairs, the petitioners
represented, was a speedy repeal of the Stamp Act.
It remained, however, for Pitt to force the hands of the new
administration. "My resolution is taken," he wrote to Nuthall[20] on
January 9, 1766; "and if I can crawl or be carried, I will deliver my
mind and heart upon the state of America." Pitt stated his opinion very
openly in the debate on the Address, when he declared that England had
no right to lay a tax on the colonies, although the authority of England
over them was sovereign and supreme in every case of legislation.
[20] Thomas Nuthall, died 1775, appointed by Rockingham Solicitor to the
Treasury, 1765.
"The colonists are subjects of this kingdom equally entitled with
yourselves to all the national rights of mankind and the peculiar
privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws and equally
participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans
are the sons, not the bastards, of England. Taxation is no part of the
governing or legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary gift and grant
of the Commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the realm are
alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a
tax, is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law; the gift and
grant is of the Commons alone. In ancient days, the Crown, the barons,
and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days the barons and the
clergy granted to the Crown, they gave and granted what was their own.
At present, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances
permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors of the land; the
Church has but a pittance; the property of the Lords, compared with that
of the Commons is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House
represents those Commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those
proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When,
therefore, in this House we give a grant, we give and grant what is our
own. But in an American tax, what do we do? We, your Majesty's Commons
for Great Britain, give a grant to your Majesty, what? Our own property?
No; we give a grant to your Majesty the property of your Majesty's
Commons of America. It is an absurdity in terms. The distinction between
legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown,
the peers, are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation
be a part of simple legislation, the Crown, the peers, have rights in
taxation as well as yourselves; rights which they will claim, which they
will exercise when the principle can be supported by power.... The
commoners of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever
been in possession, in the exercise of this, their constitutional right,
of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if
they had not enjoyed it. At the same time this kingdom, as the supreme
governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her
laws, by her regulations and restrictions, in trade, in navigation, in
manufactures; in everything, except that of taking their money out of
their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line, '_quam
ulira citraque requit consistere rectum_.'"
George Grenville at once spoke to oppose this view, only to bring down
upon him a scathing attack from Pitt. "The gentleman tells us that
America is obstinate; that America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I
rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to
all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to have made slaves of all the rest." The
Great Commoner's uncompromising declaration of the inability of the
English Parliament legally to tax the colonies, however, was not allowed
to escape criticism. Burke[21] opposed the theory, "Junius" attacked it,
and in the House of Lords Lord Mansfield denied it; while, later,
Macaulay denounced it. "The Stamp Act," he said, "was indefensible, not
because it was beyond the unconstitutional competence of Parliament, but
because it was unjust and impolitic, sterile of revenue, and fertile of
discontent."[22]
[21] In this debate Edmund Burke, who was at the time Secretary to the
Prime Minister, made his first speech, upon which he was congratulated
by Pitt, who said, "It was seasonable, reasonable, and eloquent."
Through it he first sprang into fame, but when some one expressed
surprise at this sudden elevation, Dr. Johnson, who knew Burke and of
course had read "The Vindication of Natural Society" and "On the Sublime
and Beautiful," exclaimed, "Sir, there is no wonder at all. We, who know
Mr. Burke, know that he will be one of the first men in the country."
[22] _Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham._
Whether Pitt was right or wrong, his influence was such that Lord
Rockingham realised the importance of conciliating him.[23]
[23] "The events of yesterday in the House of Commons have shown the
amazing power and influence which Mr. Pitt has whenever he takes part in
debate."--Lord Rockingham to the King.
At the same time, however, the Prime Minister desired to steer a middle
course, and eventually resolved to repeal the Stamp Act, but to preface
the measure by a Declaratory Act, enunciating the undoubted right of
Parliament to make laws binding the British in all cases. Benjamin
Franklin, examined before a Committee of the House of Commons appointed
to inquire into the American question, while denouncing the Stamp duty
as impolitic and injurious to the colonies and expressing his belief
that his countrymen would never submit to it in any form, unless
compelled by arms, expressed his opinion that, while nothing would
induce the Assemblies to revoke their resolutions, they would not object
to an act asserting the abstract rights of Parliament to impose taxes
as long as the Stamp Act was repealed. Rockingham, thus encouraged,
thereupon introduced the Declaratory Act, not because he had any liking
for it, but because in his opinion many people of high principles would
never have been brought to repeal the Stamp Act without it.[24] "It was
not the inclination of Lord Rockingham," said Charles James Fox some
years later, "but the necessity of his situation, which was the cause of
the Declaratory Act. The Act passed the House of Commons without a
division, and, in the House of Lords, when Lord Camden insisted on a
division, there were only four peers who voted with him
'non-content.'"[25]
[24] _Life of Lord Camden._
[25] _Chatham Correspondence._
"My position is this. I repeat it. I will maintain it to my latest hour.
Taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on
the laws of nature. It is more. It is an eternal law of nature; for
whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own. No man has a right to
take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his
representatives. Whoever attempts to do so attempts an injury. Whoever
does it commits a robbery. He throws down and destroys the distinction
between liberty and slavery."--Lord Camden in the House of Lords,
February 24, 1766.
The House of Commons had on January 21 given leave to Conway to bring in
a bill to repeal the Stamp duty, and had rejected by 275 to 167
Grenville's amendment to substitute "explain and amend" for "repeal."
The Bill was read for the first time on February 21 and in the long and
fierce debates that ensued Grenville took an active part in defence of
his measure. "It was," said Horace Walpole, "too much to give up his
favourite Bill and his favourite occupation, talking, both at once."
Though vigorously contested to the end, the Bill passed the lower
chamber, and was on March 4 carried to the House of Lords, where, says
George Onslow, it met "with not quite so civil a reception as such a
bill, so carried in our House, and so conveyed as it was, by a hundred
and fifty members to the other House, did, in my opinion, deserve."
After two divisions, each of which resulted in a majority for ministers,
the Bill passed the House of Lords and on March 18 received the Royal
Assent, "an event that caused more universal joy," Burke said,
"throughout the British dominions" than perhaps any other that can be
remembered, and left Grenville to lament that "it was clear that both
England and America were now governed by the mob."
CHAPTER XIV
THE KING _versus_ ROCKINGHAM AND THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT
Though in his farewell interview with Grenville, in answer to a question
of the departing minister as to how he had incurred his Majesty's
displeasure, the King stated that his late ministers had put too much
"constraint" upon him, and instead of asking or tendering advice, had
expected obedience, Grenville insisted in attributing his fall to the
machinations of Lord Bute--and this in spite of the fact that George
assured him that Lord Bute "had no hand in advising the present
change."[26]
[26] _Grenville Papers._
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a portrait after Sir Joshua Reynolds_
CHARLES WATSON WENTWORTH, SECOND MARQUESS OF ROCKINGHAM
_To face p. 26, Vol. II_]
There is scarcely any doubt that the King spoke the truth, for his
dislike of Grenville was alone sufficient to explain his desire for a
change of ministers. "I had rather see the devil in my closet than
George Grenville", he said emphatically; and though in later years he
spoke with some appreciation of Grenville's talents, he could never
bring himself to forgive the minister's conduct in the last weeks of his
administration. Grenville, however, was by no means alone in his
belief that Bute was even so late as July, 1766, a member of the King's
private junto.[27] The Rockingham Whigs believed it, and made it a
condition of their taking office that Lord Bute neither directly nor
indirectly should interfere in affairs of state. Walpole declared that
the Lord Strange episode early in 1776[28] "proved that notwithstanding
all his Majesty's and Lord Bute's own solemn professions, the latter was
really Minister still; and that no favour could be obtained but by
paying court to him. In such circumstances is it wonderful that the
nation fell into disgrace and confusion, or that the Crown itself
suffered such humiliations? A King to humour a timid yet overbearing
Favourite, encouraging opposition to his own Ministers? What a picture
of weakness!"[29]
[27] "Lord Northumberland's son, Lord Warkworth, having married Lord
Bute's daughter, was admitted to the King's private junto, which met
daily at this time at Mr. Stow's. It consisted of Lord Bute, Lord
Northumberland, Lord Mansfield, Sir Fletcher Norton, Mr. Stow, and Mr.
Stow's brother, the Primate of Ireland."--_Rockingham Memoirs, 1765._
[28] See _supra_, vol. ii, pp. 41-2.
[29] _Memoirs of George III._
The Duke of Richmond, too, was a firm believer in the Bute bogey. "I was
told that Lord Bute went this day about noon to his own house at Kew.
He did not go to the common road over the bridge, but came by riverside
in his coach; from his own garden he crossed alone to that of the
Princess of Wales's at Kew. The King also about the same time went to
the Princess of Wales's at Kew, and stayed there two hours. 'Tis
remarkable, that 'tis said that the Princess was not herself at Kew, so
that this was not accidental, but evidently a meeting of the King's with
Lord Bute settled so beforehand." So runs an extract on July 7, 1766, in
the Duke of Richmond's _Journal_; and five days later appears a
corroborative entry: "The King at about eleven went to the Princess at
Kew, although she was not there. At about one, Lord Bute was seen coming
from Ealing by a by-road, so that 'tis probable he had again been to
meet his Majesty at Kew. Lord Bute had been at Luton between the Monday
and the Saturday; and Martin, who came to London from thence on Thursday
or Friday, knew nothing of Mr. Pitt's being sent for; but that proves
clearly only that Lord Bute did not tell it him; it seems clear, though,
that he knew it by these two meetings with the King, and doubtless he
advised it." The weak point of these statements is that the Duke of
Richmond does not state his authority, who, it seems probable, was
merely a hired spy, not unlikely to so report what he thought would
best please his employers.[30]
[30] For a full investigation of this question, see Jesse: _Memoirs of
George III_. (Second edition, 1867; vol. I, p. 360 _et supra_.)
Even so late as 1782, about the time of the formation of the second
Rockingham administration, Walpole states that, "It was thought the King
saw Lord Bute on that occasion."[31] The truth probably is that Bute
never saw the King in private after Lord Rockingham accepted office, and
in confirmation of this may be quoted a letter of Lord Bute and a
statement addressed by his eldest son, Lord Mountstuart, to the
newspapers in October, 1778. "I know as little, save from newspapers, of
the present busy scene, as I do of transactions in Persia," Bute wrote
to Lord Hardwicke on July 26, 1766, when Lord Chatham became Prime
Minister, "and yet am destined for ever to be a double uneasiness, that
of incapacity to serve those I love, and yet to be continually censured
for every public transaction, though totally retired from courts and
public business." "He, Lord Bute, does authorize me to say," so ran the
circular letter of Lord Mountstuart, "that he declares upon his solemn
word of honour that he has not had the honour of waiting upon his
Majesty but at his _levée_ or Drawing-room; nor has he presumed to offer
an advice or opinion concerning the disposition of offices, or the
conduct of measures either directly or indirectly, by himself or any
other from the time when the late Duke of Cumberland was consulted in
the arrangement of a ministry, 1765, to the present hour."
[31] _Last Journals._
This is supported by Brougham, who states explicitly that the King,
after the period specified, never had any connexion with Lord Bute
directly or indirectly. "Nor did he ever see him but once; and this
history of that occurrence suddenly puts the greater part of the stories
to flight which are current upon this subject. His aunt, the Princess
Amelia, had some plan of again bringing the two parties together; and on
a day when George III was to pay her a visit at her villa at
Gunnersbury, near Brentford, she invited Lord Bute, whom she probably
had never informed of her foolish intentions. He was walking in the
garden when she took her nephew downstairs to view it, saying there was
no one there but an old friend of his, whom he had not seen for some
years. He had not time to ask who it might be, when on entering the
garden he saw his former minister walking up an alley. The King
instantly turned back to avoid him, reproved the silly old woman
sharply, and declared that, if ever she repeated such experiments, she
had seen him for the last time in her house."[32]
[32] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._
It is further related by Galt, how the Princess Dowager and Lord Bute
laid a plan to take the King by surprise, "so that Lord Bute should, as
if by chance, obtain permission to see the first dispatches received by
the King while at Carlton House; it being frequently the custom for the
Secretary of State to transmit them at those periods. When the green box
was brought to the King, he, as usual, was about to retire to read the
papers contained therein, when 'The Favourite' took up two candles, and
made as if to precede the King to his closet, in the hope that, when
there, he would be invited to remain and acquaint himself with the
contents of the documents, by which means he might informally return to
political business. But the young monarch was on his guard," says the
chronicler, "and stopping at the door of his apartment, took the candles
himself, bowed dismissal to the candidate, and shut the door: a hint
fully understood, and considered as a final rejection." This episode
presumably took place in the latter part of 1765, after which year we
are assured, when his Majesty was announced at Carlton House, Bute
always retired by the private staircase.[33]
[33] _George III, his Court and Family._
* * * * *
The offer made to Lord Rockingham to form a government took most people
by surprise, for that peer had not been marked out as a Prime Minister,
being, indeed, in the public eye associated less with politics than with
the turf, and distinguished chiefly by his singular wager with Lord
Orford on a race between two geese at Newmarket. Devoid of ambition, he
had no craving for power, and was reluctant to accept office when that
course was proposed to him by the Duke of Cumberland, who detected in
him sterling ability, which, however, was not visible to the King. "I
thought that I had not two men in my Bedchamber of less parts than Lord
Rockingham,"[34] said the sovereign, who later twitted the Prime
Minister with his silence in Parliament: "I am much pleased the
Opposition has forced you to hear your own voice, which I hope will
encourage you to stand forth in other debates."[35]
[34] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[35] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The Rockingham administration was undeniably weak--"a lutestring
ministry, fit only for summer wear," Charles Townshend called it. The
Duke of Grafton, one of the Secretaries of State, was unreliable, and
Conway, the other, whose courage on the field was imperturbable,[36] on
the Treasury Bench was infirm of purpose; while the Duke of Newcastle,
who had reluctantly yielded his claim to the Treasury and accepted the
post of Lord Privy Seal (to which, as a propitiatory gift, was for the
nonce attached the patronage of the Church), and Lord Winchelsea,
President of the Council, were old men. Every effort was made to secure
the support, or at least the neutrality, of Pitt, and, with this object
in view, places were found for his friends--the Duke of Grafton and
General Conway, as already mentioned, were made Secretaries of State,
his brother-in-law, James Grenville, was appointed Vice-Treasurer of
Ireland, and his confidential legal adviser, Nuthall, one of the
Secretaries of the Treasury, while Lord Lyttelton was offered the post
of Cofferer of the Household, and Chief Justice Pratt was raised to the
peerage as Baron Camden. Pitt, however, had no kindly feeling for an
administration that divided the Whigs, and, though not actually hostile,
he let it be clearly known that he had no confidence in it. "The
openings from Lord Rockingham to your Lordship and Colonel Barré, you
will easily believe do not surprise me," he wrote in reply to Lord
Shelburne in December, 1765; "nothing being so natural as for ministers,
under the double pressure of affairs all in confusion, and doubtful
internal situation to recur to distinguished abilities for assistance."
[36] "I don't pretend to be like Henry Conway, who walks up to the mouth
of a cannon with as much coolness and grace as if he was going to dance
a minuet."--George Stanhope.
It was not long after this letter was written that Lord Rockingham, in
the desire to counteract the dislike of the Court and to convert a part
of the strong opposition into supporters, obtained the reluctant consent
of the King to make overtures to Pitt to join the ministry. "I have
resolved, most coolly and attentively, the business now before me,"
George wrote to Lord Rockingham on January 9, "and am of opinion that so
loose a conversation as that of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Townshend is not
sufficient to risk either my dignity or the continuance of my
administration, by a fresh treaty with that gentleman, for if it should
miscarry, all public opinion of this ministry would be destroyed by such
an attempt." Rockingham, however, was firm, and pointed out that, "Your
Majesty's administration will be shook to the greatest degree, if no
further attempt is made to get Mr. Pitt to take a cordial part, is much
too apparent to be disguised."[37] The King's objection however, was
amply justified, for, as he had anticipated, Pitt refused to introduce
his opinion, unless in the royal presence and by the royal command, an
offer which was declined by the Prime Minister, who sought an ally and
not a successor.[38] Not content with the rejection of Lord Rockingham's
overtures, Pitt dealt a blow at the ministry when he publicly stated he
had no confidence in it. "Pardon me, gentlemen, confidence is a plant of
slow growth in an aged bosom; youth is the season of credulity," he said
in his speech in the debate on the Address, January 14. "By comparing
events with each other, reasoning from effects to causes, methinks I
plainly discover the traces of an over-ruling influence.[39] There is a
clause in the Act of Settlement obliging every minister to sign his name
to the advice which he gives to his sovereign. Would it were observed! I
have had the honour to serve the Crown, and if I could have submitted to
influence, I might still have continued to serve; but I would not be
responsible to others."
[37] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[38] _Chatham Correspondence._
[39] Dr. Hunt believes that the "over-ruling influence" Pitt thought he
detected was that of the Duke of Newcastle.
In the endeavour to secure the repeal of the Stamp Act Lord Rockingham
had more to contend against than a refractory House of Commons, for the
King threw the weight of his influence against the measure, and though
this was not openly avowed, yet it militated none the less effectually
against the administration. That George interfered in this matter has
been denied by some writers, but the best authorities, almost without
exception, agree that this was the case, and, indeed, a perusal of the
memoirs of those who were concerned in the American question confirms
this view. Nicholls remarks: "Lord Rockingham repealed the Stamp Act,
and from that hour the King determined to remove him";[40] but as a
matter of fact George's efforts to displace the Prime Minister dated
from the day he became acquainted with the latter's determination to
carry the repeal; and, as will be seen, he left no stone unturned to
achieve his object. "From a _personal inclination_ of the King, and
influenced by Lord Bute and the Princess Dowager, the followers of Court
favour went the other way, and half the Court at least voted in
opposition to administration."[41]
[40] _Recollections and Reflections._
[41] Lord Hardwicke: _Memorial_.
Yet all the time he was intriguing against the ministers, George hid his
duplicity under a more or less encouraging manner.[42] "I just take up
my pen to thank you for your attention in sending me a few particulars
of this day's debate in the House of Commons, which, by the great
majority, must be reckoned a very favourable appearance for the repeal
of the Stamp Act in that House," he wrote to Lord Rockingham on January
21, 1766,[43] and on the same day he stated to General Conway: "Nothing
can in my eyes be more advantageous than the debate in the House of
Commons this day;"[44] but in reference to this same division Sir
Lawrence Dundas told the Duke of Bedford that a person ("whom" wrote his
Grace, "he did not name, but I suppose to be Colonel Graeme) had
informed him he never saw the King so affected as he was at the result
of the last great majority in the House of Commons."[45] Indeed, while
the official correspondence of the King expressed nothing but cordiality
towards the ministers and satisfaction at their various successes, and
while Lord Talbot and some of the "King's friends" were making an overt
show of support, Lord Rockingham became aware that Lord Chancellor
Northington was organising opposition against the measure within the
ministerial ranks. "The Crown itself seemed inclined to consign its
members to turn against its own measures," says Walpole. "Lest mankind
should mistake the part 'The Favourite' intended to take on the Stamp
Act, Lord Denbigh,[46] his standard-bearer, and Augustus Hervey, asked
leave to resign their places, as they proposed to vote against the
repeal. The farce was carried on by the King; and to prevent any panic
in the minds of those who might have a mind to act the same part, his
Majesty told them that they _were at liberty to vote against him and
keep their places_."[47]
[42] "Lord Rockingham afterwards declared that he had never enjoyed such
distinguished marks of the royal kindness as during a period when the
influence of Great Britain was paralysed; every foreign capital had the
knowledge that the existing Prime Minister would not remain in office
ten minutes after a successor could be found for him."--Trevelyan:
_Early Life of Fox_.
[43] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[44] _Ibid._
[45] _Bedford Correspondence._
[46] Basil Fielding, sixth Earl of Denbigh.
[47] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
No self-respecting minister could tolerate this situation, and at the
beginning of February Lord Rockingham intimated to the King that "a
ministry undermined by the Household could not much longer drag on a
precarious existence;"[48] but his representation availed nothing, for a
day or two after, on some point in connexion with a Scotch petition,
ministers secured a victory only by 148 to 139 votes, on which occasion
in the minority were Lord Mountstuart, Jeremiah Dyson, a Lord of Trade,
Lord George Sackville, lately appointed by Lord Rockingham
Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, Lord Strange, Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, and several Grooms of the Bedchamber. Even more humiliating
was the defeat of the Government on February 3 in the House of Lords,
when the opposition carried the question "to enforce the execution of
the Stamp Act _vi et armis_," by 63 to 60 votes.
[48] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
It seemed to all lookers-on that the days of the ministry were numbered.
"The situation of ministers became every day more irksome and
precarious," said Walpole; "the talk is of a new administration," Lord
Hardwicke informed his brother; and Lord Chesterfield wrote on February
10: "Most people think, and I among the rest, that the date of the
present ministers is pretty nearly out." The immediate result of these
manoeuvres was to damage the prestige of the ministry abroad, and, in
support of this statement, Lord Rockingham showed the King "an
intercepted letter of the Russian Minister to his Court, in which he
advised his mistress not to hasten to conclude the new treaty of
commerce between England and Russia with the present ministers, for
they could not maintain their ground. Lord Rockingham pointed out the
damage the King brought on his own affairs by having a ministry who did
not enjoy his confidence. This the King denied, and said they had his
confidence."[49]
[49] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
The difficulties of the ministry elated the Court, but its joy was
premature, for the American question was too important to be settled by
royal bribes. On February 7, when, after General Conway had called the
attention of the House of Commons to "the calamitous condition of
America," Grenville moved an address to the King to enforce the laws,
the motion being rejected by 274 to 134 votes. The joy of the ministers
at their victory was tempered with disgust at the treachery of the
Court, for the minority had included, besides all Lord Bute's
friends--the private junto--nearly a dozen of the King's household.
Again, on the following day, the Prime Minister remonstrated with the
King. "I humbly presume to trouble your Majesty on the event of last
night in the Commons. The appearances there fully justify what I have
presumed to mention to your Majesty in some late conversations, and make
it necessary for me, both as a faithful and in truth most affectionate
servant, to hope that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to allow
me to attend your Majesty at any time in the course of this day, that I
may open to your Majesty the sentiments and opinions of a heart, which I
will assert has no motive but its affection and duty to your Majesty,
and its anxiety for the welfare of this country in the present critical
situation."[50] The King's reply consisted of evasions and professions,
which were shown by subsequent events to be merely misleading.[51]
[50] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[51] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
Lord Rockingham was a patient man, but when, three days after his
interview with the King, one of the supporters of the ministry, John
Offley, Member of Parliament for Oxford, wrote to inform him of a report
that was being spread in political circles "that Lord Strange had
yesterday an interview with the King, who assured him he did not wish
for the repeal of the Stamp Act, only wished that it might be altered,"
the Prime Minister felt that the time had come when a conciliatory
attitude would be the veriest folly. Having obtained the assurance of
Lord Strange that he had given publicity to the statement attributed to
him, Rockingham waited on the sovereign, not once, but, Lord Albemarle
thinks, three times, on each occasion obtaining some slight
satisfaction. "It would seem", Lord Albemarle remarks, "as if the
minister had determined not to quit the royal presence until he had
secured 'the word of a King.'"[52] In vain the King endeavoured to evade
a direct answer, in vain he contrived to confuse the issue: Lord
Rockingham was determined that, unless the King gave him authority to
contradict the report, he would forthwith resign. George at last
realised it was advisable to suffer the humiliation of withdrawing from
an untenable position as there was no other course open to him that was
not infinitely more disagreeable. Indeed, he saw that if Lord Rockingham
resigned, it would be necessary to undergo the greater ignominy of
begging him to remain, for at the moment there was no one to take his
place. The objections to Bute were insuperable, and even the King's
courage was not great enough to attempt again to impose him on the
nation; of Grenville, George had declared he "would sooner meet him at
the end of his sword than let him into his closet"; while Pitt's
attitude towards the repeal of the Stamp Act made him less acceptable
than the present Prime Minister. In the end, therefore, he gave the
desired contradiction in writing. "I desire you would tell Lord Strange
that I am now, and have been hitherto, for modification; but that when
many were for enforcing, I was then for a repeal of the Stamp Act."[53]
[52] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[53] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_; Walpole: _Memoirs of George
III_; etc. "The King complained that Lord Rockingham had taxed him with
breach of his word."--Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
Thus reinforced, Lord Rockingham remained at the head of affairs, though
he was so disgusted that he would have welcomed an opportunity that
would have enabled him to escape from an unenviable position. He
realised, however, it was his duty to do all in his power to repeal the
Stamp Act, and, in spite of all difficulties, he persevered until the
Bill received the Royal Assent on March 18. The King had frequently
assured Lord Rockingham that members of the Household who voted against
the repeal were actuated by conscientious scruples and that when once
that question was settled they would return to their allegiance; but
ministers soon discovered there was no truth in this, for the opposition
of the King's friends continued.[54]
[54] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The end was now not far off. "The ministry is dead and only lying in
state, and Charles Townshend who never spoke for them is one of the
mutes," said a keen observer. The Duke of Grafton, after a visit early
in May to Pitt at Hayes, said in the House of Lords that the Government
wanted "authority, dignity, and extension," adding that "if Mr. Pitt
would give his assistance, he should with pleasure take up the spade and
dig in the trenches;" and he followed up this disloyal speech by
resigning on May 14 the seals of his office. These were offered in the
first instance to Lord Hardwicke, who declined them but accepted an
office without emolument, and afterwards to the Duke of Richmond, who
accepted them. Intrigues were then set on foot by Lord Northington, and
these were so successful that on July 7, to quote Horace Walpole, "His
Majesty with the most frank indifference, and without even thanking them
[the ministers] for their services, and for having undertaken the
administration at his own earnest solicitation, acquainted them
severally that he had sent for Mr. Pitt."[55]
[55] _Memoirs of George III._
The Rockingham ministry, in spite of the King's attitude, had done well
during its year of office, for, besides the repeal of the Stamp Act and
the conclusions of an advantageous commercial treaty with Russia, it had
rescinded the unpopular Cyder Tax and had passed the important
resolution that, except in cases provided for by Act of Parliament,
general warrants were illegal. It was, indeed, an enlightened
administration, and deserved the encomium delivered by Burke. "They
treated their sovereign with decency; with reverence. They
discountenanced, and, it is hoped, for ever abolished, the dangerous and
unconstitutional practice of removing military officers for their votes
in Parliament. They firmly adhered to those friends of liberty who had
run all hazards in its cause, and provided for them in preference to
every other claim. With the Earl of Bute they had no personal connexion,
no correspondence of councils. They neither courted him nor persecuted
him. They practised no corruption, nor were they even suspected of it.
They sold no offices. They obtained no reversions of pensions, either
coming in or going out, for themselves, their families, or their
dependents. In the prosecution of their measures they were traversed by
an opposition of a new and singular character; an opposition of placemen
and pensioners. They were supported by the confidence of the nation. And
having held their offices under many difficulties and discouragements,
they left them at the express command, as they had accepted them at the
earnest request, of their royal master."[56]
[56] _A Short Account of a late Short Administration._
CHAPTER XV
"THE KING'S FRIENDS"
"Mr. Pitt," wrote the King on July 7, 1766, "your very dutiful and
handsome conduct the last summer makes me desirous of having your
thoughts how an able and dignified ministry may be formed. I desire,
therefore, you will come for this salutary purpose, to town."
"Penetrated with the deepest sense of your Majesty's goodness to me, and
with a heart overflowing with duty and zeal for the honour and happiness
of the most gracious and benign sovereign," Pitt replied, "I shall
hasten to London as fast as I possibly can; wishing that I could change
infirmity into wings of expedition, the sooner to be permitted the high
honour to lay at your Majesty's feet the poor but sincere offering of my
little services."
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a portrait by Richard Brompton_
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM
_To face p. 46, Vol. II_]
Close on the heels of his letter, Pitt came to London, arriving on July
11, and seeing the King at Richmond on the following day, when he
undertook to form a cabinet. The relations between Pitt and Lord Temple
were not so friendly as before, for Pitt was angry with his
brother-in-law for having opposed the repeal of the Stamp Act, and the
Earl was displeased that Pitt had not thrown in his lot with the
family league formed at Stowe. Notwithstanding, Pitt offered the
Treasury to Temple, who was not satisfied by this proposal, which he
regarded as inadequate, and suggested an equal division of power and the
right to nominate half the cabinet, on which terms he was willing to
abandon his brother, George Grenville. Pitt, of course, declined to
consider such a proposal, and thereupon Temple declined, as he wrote to
Lady Chatham, "to be stuck into a ministry as a great cypher at the head
of the Treasury, surrounded with other cyphers by Mr. Pitt."[57] This
refusal was the end of the political career of Earl Temple, who did not
realise that it was only as an adherent of William Pitt he was of
importance in the State.
[57] _Chatham Correspondence._
Pitt found it was no easy task at this time to form a ministry, for, as
Lord Northington said, "There are four parties, Butes, Bedfords,
Rockinghams, Chathams, and we (the last) are the weakest of the
four."[58] In these circumstances, Pitt was desirous to retain as many
of the members of the last administration as could be induced to shift
their allegiance; and in this matter he was assisted by Lord Rockingham,
who behaved very well under great provocation. "Indignant as Lord
Rockingham naturally felt at the treatment he has received at Lord
Chatham's hands ... as Lord Chatham professed to be actuated by the same
political principles as the late Government, Lord Rockingham desired
such of his followers as the new Premier did not remove to remain at
their posts."[59] Accordingly, the Duke of Portland continued Lord
Chamberlain, and Sir Charles Saunders remained at the Board of
Admiralty. Conway, who retained his Secretaryship of State, had,
however, anticipated the pronouncement of his late chief, for when the
King told him he had sent for Pitt, "Sir," said he, "I am glad of it. I
always thought it the best thing your Majesty could do. I wish it may
answer." No wonder the Duke of Richmond wrote bitterly to Lord
Rockingham: "If Mr. Conway's sentiments get among our friends, it will
be a race among them who shall go first to Mr. Pitt."[60] Lord Camden
succeeded Lord Northington as Lord Chancellor, and the latter was
solaced with the office of President of the Council, and the reversion
for two lives of a lucrative sinecure situation. The Duke of Grafton
became First Lord of the Treasury, the Earl of Shelbourne a Secretary of
State, Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer; while Pitt,
whose ill-health prevented him from undertaking departmental duties,
contented himself with the easy post of Lord Privy Seal, and went to the
Upper House. Such was the "Mosaic Ministry," which Burke, in a speech on
American taxation, described as "a chequered and speckled
administration; a piece of joinery, so crossly indented and whimsically
dove-tailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; here a bit of black stone,
and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers; King's friends and
republicans; Whigs and Tories; treacherous friends and open
enemies;--that it was indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to
touch and unsure to stand on."
[58] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[59] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[60] _Ibid._
As soon as it became known that the King had sent for Pitt there was
immense enthusiasm, and when it was announced that the Great Commoner
had consented to undertake the government there was great joy,
especially in the City, where Pitt's popularity was boundless. The
Corporation at once arranged to present him with an Address and to
invite him as the guest of honour to a banquet at the Guildhall, and
orders were given for a general illumination. The lamps were actually
affixed to the Monument, when the news came that the Great Commoner had,
on July 30, accepted an earldom, and the orders for the Address,
banquet, and illumination were hastily countermanded. There was, of
course, no reason why Pitt should not go to the House of Lords if he
desired, for he had earned a peerage, if ever a man had; but it was
rumoured--and, such is the fickleness of the people, everywhere
believed--that the Court had bought him with this honour, and, as
Walpole said, "that fatal title blasted all the affection which his
country had borne to him, and which he had deserved so well."[61] "The
City have brought in their verdict of _felo de se_ against William, Earl
of Chatham," wrote Sir Robert Wilmot;[62] and certainly, while the name
of Pitt had been one to conjure with, the name of Chatham was found to
have no charm.
[61] _Memoirs of the Reign of George III._
[62] Thackeray: _Life of Chatham_.
It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and the decline in public
favour of Chatham, the weakness of the "Mosaic Ministry" and the failure
of all attempts to strengthen it,[63] was the King's opportunity. "I
know the Earl of Chatham will zealously give his aid towards destroying
all party distinctions, and restoring that subordination to government
which alone can preserve that inestimable blessing, Liberty, from
degenerating into licentiousness," so George III wrote to the new Prime
Minister. It is clear that the King was pursuing his plan to be himself
the real ruler of the country, and he had certainly succeeded already to
a considerable degree. By his machinations, he had taken the government
out of the hands of the great Whig family, and had divided that party
into several hostile sections. This made more practicable his desire to
extinguish party, but he was confronted with the difficulty that, even
in an age that was not distinguished for public honesty, public men did
not transfer their allegiance from one leader to another as readily as
the sovereign desired.
[63] "Lord Chatham found it necessary to gain new friends, and enfeeble
his opponents; but his endeavours failed. The harsh manner in which he
dismissed Lord Edgcumbe from the appointment of Treasurer of the
Household, with a view to gratify the Duke of Newcastle by bestowing it
on Sir John Shelley, the Duke's near relation, disgusted many
respectable members of Administration. The Duke of Portland, the Earls
of Bessborough and Scarborough, and Lord Monson, withdrew their support;
and Sir Charles Saunders, Sir William Meredith and Admiral Keppel,
resigned their places at the Board of Admiralty."--Adolphus: _History of
England, November, 1766_.
Overtures were made to the "Bloomsbury Gang," but without any real
effectual result, for, though one or two of the minor members joined the
Government, the Duke of Bedford held aloof.
A king, however, has no difficulty in securing adherents, and George
collected such as could be induced to rally round his standard into a
body that called itself the King's Friends. "Ministers are no longer the
public servants of the state, but the private domestics of the
sovereign," Junius thundered. "One particular class of men are permitted
to call themselves _the King's Friends_, as if the body of the people
were the King's enemies: or as if his Majesty looked for a resource or
consolation in the attachment of a few favourites against the general
contempt and detestation of his subjects. Edward and Richard the Second
made the same distinction between the collective body of the people and
a contemptible party who surrounded the throne." Unfortunately for
George, all reputable parliamentarians belonged to some party already
existing, and, as Sir George Trevelyan has put it admirably, "The only
recruiting ground that was left open to his Majesty's operations lay
among the waifs and strays of politics; among the disappointed, the
discontented and the discredited; among those whom Chatham would not
stoop to notice, and Newcastle had not cared to buy; and out of such
material as this was gradually organized a band of camp-followers
promoted in the ranks, at the head of which no decent leader would have
been seen marching through the lobby."[64]
[64] Trevelyan: _The Early Life of C. J. Fox_.
The immediate _entourage_ of the Court was, as we have seen, composed of
quiet, respectable persons; and the King, who realized that the majority
of those politicians who placed themselves at his disposal did so
entirely for the sake of the emoluments and honours that majesty could
bestow, had little or no personal intercourse with his adherents.
Indeed, because of this want of personal relation Lord Carlisle declined
the post of Lord of the Bedchamber. "I have no reason to expect, however
long I may continue, that either by assiduity, attention and respect, I
can ever succeed to any kind of confidence with my master," he wrote.
"That familiarity which subsists between other princes, and those of
their servants whose attachment they are convinced of, being excluded
from our Court by the King's living so much in private, damps all views
of ambition which might arise from that quarter." Lord Winchelsea,
indeed, did accept such a post, but reluctantly and in a manner that
irritated the King, who wrote to Lord North. "I cannot say I am quite
edified at Lord Winchelsea's not in reality liking his appointment,
though out of duty he accepts of it. I remember the time when an
ambassador would have thought that honour a reward for ability and
diligence during a long foreign mission. However, it will teach me one
lesson, never again to offer it, but to wait for applications."[65]
[65] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
The majority, however, were content with the loaves and fishes, and
probably had no desire to be on intimate terms with the monarch, except
for such benefit as might accrue from such friendship. This was
particularly fortunate, for while the King was highly respectable and
moral, the high officials of his Court included some of the most
desperate _roués_ of the day and might have furnished examples for a
preacher whose text was, "The wicked flourish like a green bay tree."
The Earl of March,[66] Wordsworth's "Degenerate Douglas," and an avowed
profligate, was a Lord of the Bedchamber for twenty-eight years under
eleven successive Prime Ministers; another Lord was, after a time,
according to Trevelyan, judged too bad to remain even in the Bedchamber,
and was accordingly packed off to Virginia as its Governor; and the
Keeper of the Great Wardrobe was Lord le Despencer, one of the notorious
Medmenham monks. More respectable morally, however, were the King's
spokesmen in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, Lord
Eglington,[67] and "Mungo" Dyson.[68] The latter, however, was a
political "Vicar of Bray" and had lost the regard of all reputable
statesmen by the facility with which he changed his opinions whenever it
was to his advantage to do so. When he entered Parliament he was
supposed to hold anti-monarchical views, but he was at the time in the
pay of Bute; later he posed as a supporter of Grenville, but deserted
him for the King. It was shortly after this desertion that he assumed a
bag-wig instead of a tye-wig, whereupon Lord Gower cleverly remarked
that the change was doubtless made "because no tie would hold him."[69]
Such was the material with which a King, who prided himself upon his
honesty and morality, chose to work.
[66] Afterwards fourth Duke of Queensbury.
[67] Alexander Montgomerie, tenth Earl of Eglington.
[68] In the farce of "Padlock," Don Lorenzo asks his black servant
Mungo, "Can you be honest?" to which Mungo replies, "What you give me,
Massa?" Barré, who was present, promptly nicknamed Jeremiah Dyson
"Mungo," and by this designation he was henceforth known.
[69] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
"'Tis very true, my sov'reign King,
My skill may weel be doubted;
But facts are chiels that winna ding,
And downa be disputed.
Your royal nest, beneath your wing,
Is e'en right reft an' clouted;
And now the third part of the string,
An' less, will gang about it
Than did ae day.
Far be't frae me that I aspire
To blame your legislation,
Or say, ye wisdom want, or fire,
To rule this mighty nation!
But, faith! I muckle doubt, my Sire,
Ye've trusted ministration
To chaps, wha, in a barn or byre,
Wad better fill'd their station
Than courts yon day."[70]
[70] Burns: _A Dream_.
For some time before he resumed office Lord Chatham had been far from
well, and he was in no condition to conduct the delicate negotiations
incidental to the formation of a ministry: the conferences in which he
had to take part, he told his wife, heated his blood and accelerated his
pulse. Soon after his administration came into power, ill-health drove
him into seclusion at Bath. "Lord Chatham is here with more equipage,
household and retinue, than most of the old patriarchs used to travel
with in ancient days," Gilly Williams wrote to George Selwyn. "He comes
nowhere but to the Pump Room. There he makes a short essay and retires."
The King was much disturbed at this unexpected defection of his
principal supporter, and great was the discomfiture of the ministers at
being deprived of their leader. It came as a great relief to sovereign
and colleagues alike when, after a considerable interval the news came
that the Earl had fixed a day for his arrival in London.
The joy was premature, however, for though Lord Chatham duly left Bath,
when he reached Marlborough he shut himself up in his rooms at the
_Castle Inn_, and remained there for some weeks, declining to see even
the Duke of Grafton, who had offered to visit him. "It is by no means
practicable for me to enter into the discussion of business," he wrote
to the Duke on February 22, 1767.[71] When at length he did arrive in
the metropolis, matters were in nowise improved, for he still refused to
receive any one. It was a curious position: "the nation had for some
years beheld, or thought it descried, a real minister behind the
curtain, who interposed his credit without holding an office. Here was
the reverse--a minister in whose name all business was transacted, but
who would exercise no part of his function."[72]
[71] _Chatham Correspondence._
[72] Mary Berry: _Journals_.
In vain the King offered to visit him at North End, when, he declared,
he "would not talk of business, but only wanted to have the world know
that he had attended him";[73] and equally fruitless were the Duke of
Grafton's renewed appeals for an interview. The Earl had not even the
energy to use a pen, and the replies were written by his wife. "Your
duty and affection for my person, your own honour, call on you to make
an effort," the King persisted in a letter on May 30. "Five minutes'
conversation with you would raise the Duke of Grafton's spirits, for his
heart is good. Mine, I thank God, wants no rousing. My love to my
country, as well as what I owe to my family, prompt me not to yield to
faction. Though none of my ministers stand by me, I cannot truckle."[74]
On receipt of this, Lord Chatham yielded, and consented to see the Duke
on the following day, and the meeting had the result of averting the
threatened resignation of the latter, who, however, found it impossible
to discuss business with the Prime Minister, whose nerves and spirits
were too affected to permit of a lengthy discussion. "So childish and
agitated was his whole frame," Walpole has stated, "that if a word of
business was mentioned to him, tears and tremblings immediately
succeeded to cheerful, indifferent conversation."[75] He was indeed
entirely incapacitated, and his recovery was very slow. "Lord Chatham's
state of health (I was told authentically yesterday) is certainly the
lowest dejection and debility that mind or body can be in," Whately
wrote on June 30. "He sits all day leaning on his hands, which he
supports on the table; does not permit any person to remain in the room;
knocks when he wants anything, and, having made his wants known, gives a
signal without speaking to the person who answered his call to
return."[76]
[73] _Chatham Correspondence._
[74] _Chatham Correspondence._
[75] _Memoirs of George III._
[76] Phillimore: _Life of Lyttelton_.
Though the Prime Minister was willing to resign, George III implored him
to retain at least the semblance of power. "Your name has been
sufficient to enable my administration to proceed," he wrote;[77] for he
was fearful lest he should be compelled to receive Grenville again. "The
King owned," says Walpole, "that he was inclined to keep Lord Chatham,
if capable of remaining in place, _having seen how much his government
had been weakened by frequent changes_. He wished that things might
remain as they were, at least till the end of the session, when he might
have time to make any necessary alterations. At his _levée_, his Majesty
asked James Grenville aloud, how Lord Chatham did? He replied 'Better.'
The King said,'If he has lost his fever, I desire to be his physician,
and that he would not admit Dr. Addington any more into his house. He
shall go into the country for four months; not so far as Bath, but to
Tunbridge.' He repeated the same words publicly to Lord Bristol,
everybody understanding that his Majesty's wish was to retain Lord
Chatham."[78]
[77] _Chatham Correspondence._
[78] "I think I have a right to _insist_ on your remaining in my
service; for I with pleasure look forward to the time of your recovery,
when I may have your assistance in resisting the torrent of factions
this country so much labours under."--George III to Lord Chatham.
So long as Lord Chatham was ill, the King enjoyed the support, such as
it was, of his name, but soon after his recovery, on October 12, 1768,
the Earl tendered his resignation, and although George begged him to
withdraw it, he declined to do so. He was, indeed, very angry, for the
measures carried by the administration that bore his name were in direct
opposition to the principles of which he was the champion. Even so early
as January 2, 1768, in a private letter to the Earl, "Junius" had
informed him of this. "During your absence from administration, it is
well known that not one of the ministers has either adhered to you with
firmness, or supported, with any degree of steadiness those principles
on which you engaged in the King's service. From being their idol at
first, their veneration for you has gradually diminished, until at last
they have absolutely set you at defiance." When this arrived Lord
Chatham was still too ill to take up the matter; but when, some months
later, the Duke of Grafton informed him that the ministry had carried
through Parliament a Bill for a tax on American imports, we may well
believe with Jesse that the "astonishment of Rip Van Winkle when he
awoke from his long sleep in the Katskill mountains, or of Abou Hassan
when he found himself in the couch of the Caliph Haroun Abraschid could
scarcely have exceeded that of Lord Chatham."[79] Even then he was not
well enough to take any action, but as soon as his health was restored
he promptly severed all connexion with those who had betrayed him.
[79] _Memoirs of George III._
[Illustration: _From a portrait by Battoni_
AUGUSTUS HENRY, DUKE OF GRAFTON
_To face p. 61, Vol. II_]
During the illness of his chief, the leadership had devolved on the Duke
of Grafton, who is to-day best remembered by the terrific attacks made
upon him by "Junius", who declared "the Duke of Grafton's heart was the
blackest in the kingdom." He had abandoned Rockingham, he had abandoned
Wilkes, and eventually he had abandoned Chatham, though in relation to
the last he made an effort, as strenuous as could be expected from one
always infirm of purpose. Nicholls has told us how those who wished to
destroy the Chatham administration, realized that they would almost
certainly attain their object if they could separate the Duke from the
Earl. They won over to their views the Duke's secretary, Bradshaw, and
endeavoured also to corrupt the Duke's mistress, Nancy Parsons.[80] With
the latter, however, they had no success. "She had the sense to see that
the Duke's honour required him to remain firm in his connexion with the
Earl of Chatham. She had the sense to see this; and she had the
integrity to tell him so. Her influence for some time prevented the Duke
of Grafton from deserting the Earl of Chatham. When this was seen, those
who wished the destruction of that administration changed the direction
of their batteries; instead of using their efforts to separate the Duke
of Grafton from the Earl of Chatham, they employed them to separate him
from his mistress. In this they succeeded, and married him to Miss
Wriothesley, the niece of the Duchess of Bedford.[81] To separate him
from the Earl of Chatham was then an easy task."[82]
[80] Nancy Parsons subsequently married Lord Maynard, an event duly
chronicled by an anonymous pamphleteer in "A Letter to a Celebrated
Young Nobleman on His Late Nuptials," 1777. "I will not on this occasion
pay your Lordship so bad a compliment as to enumerate Lady Maynard's
charms; all the world knows them as well as yourself; her virtues you
alone are acquainted with."
[81] His first wife having divorced him, he married a daughter of the
Rev. Richard Wriothesley.
[82] Nicholls: _Recollections, Personal and Political_.
The Duke of Grafton, like Lord Rockingham, was a man of pleasure,
happier with his dogs and his books than in political life;[83] and he
would rather have abandoned politics than his mistress, to whom his
attachment was notorious, although, according to "Junius," she was at
this time, "a faded beauty," and according to Walpole, "one of the
commonest creatures in London." It seems that she had influence over
him, and he was certainly proud of the connexion. "He brings everybody
to dine with him," Lady Temple has recorded. "His female friend sits at
the upper end of his table; some do like it, and some do not. She is
very pious, a constant Church-woman, and reproves his Grace for swearing
and being angry, which he owns is very wrong, and, with great
submission, begs her pardon for being so ill-bred before her." He
appeared with her at Ascot, and even at the Opera when the King and
Queen were present, a piece of bad taste that gave "Junius" an opening,
of which he was not slow to avail himself. "If vice could be excused,
there is yet a certain display of it, a certain outrage to decency, a
violation of public decorum which, for the benefit of society, should
never be forgiven," wrote the great satirist. "It is not that he kept a
mistress at home, but that he constantly attended her abroad. It is not
the private indulgence, but the public insult of which I complain. The
name of Miss Parsons would scarcely have been known, if the First Lord
of the Treasury had not led her in triumph through the Opera House, even
in the presence of the Queen. When we see a man act in this manner we
may admit the shameless depravity of his heart, but what are we to think
of his understanding?"[84]
[83] "The account of the Cabinet Council being put off--first for a
match at Newmarket, and secondly because the Duke of Grafton had
company in his house--exhibits a lively picture of the present
administration."--George Grenville to Whately, October 20, 1767.
[84] Letter signed "Philo-Junius," June 22, 1769.
The Duke undoubtedly intended to pursue the policy of Lord Chatham, but,
falling under the influence of the King--who was willing enough to
forgive, for his political ends, such a flagrant insult to his consort
as that narrated above--it so happened that whenever the ministry moved
it was in the opposite direction to that which the Earl would have
desired.
CHAPTER XVI
THE KING'S RULE
The Duke of Grafton as a matter of course now became Prime Minister, but
there were not wanting signs that the administration would not long
endure, and when Lord Chatham reappeared in the political arena it was
obvious its days were numbered. The famous statesman's return was most
unexpected, for he was still supposed to be in the country, incapable of
ever again transacting business.[85] "He himself," wrote Walpole on July
7, 1769, "_in propria personâ_, and not in a straight-waistcoat, walked
into the King's _levée_ this morning, and was in the closet twenty
minutes after the _levée_." At his interview Chatham told George that he
disapproved of the policy of the ministry, especially as regarded Wilkes
and America--a statement calculated to alarm the King, who approved of
the action taken. "For my part," said the Earl, "I am grown old, and
unable to fill any office of business; but this I am resolved on, that I
will not even sit at Council but to meet Lord Rockingham. He, and he
alone, has a knot of spotless friends, such as ought to govern this
kingdom." As he emerged from the Royal Closet, Chatham encountered
Grafton, and, embittered especially by the remembrance of the dismissal
of his personal friend, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, from the post of Governor
of Virginia, greeted him with the utmost coldness. It was to be war to
the death, and Chatham was too great a man to veil his enmity under the
cloak of friendship.
[85] "At length the clouds which had gathered over his mind broke and
passed away. His gout returned, and freed him from a more cruel malady.
His nerves were newly braced. His spirits became buoyant. He woke as
from a sickly dream. It was a strange recovery. Men had been in the
habit of talking of him as of one dead, and, when he first showed
himself at the King's _levée_, started as if they had seen a ghost. It
was more than two years and a half since he had appeared in
public."--Macaulay: _The Earl of Chatham_.
The battle began after the reassembling of Parliament on January 9,
1770, when the King in his speech referred to a distemper which had
recently appeared among the horned cattle. This was seized upon by the
caricaturists, and denounced by "Junius": "While the whole kingdom was
agitated with anxious expectation upon one great point, you meanly
evaded the question, and instead of the explicit firmness and decision
of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier and the
whining piety of a Methodist." It has not been made clear whether this
was inserted by the King, who in his capacity of farmer was much
perturbed by the ravages made by the disease, or whether it was an
attempt to attract the attention of Parliament to this rather than to
more serious issues.
Serious issues enough there were at the end of 1769 to occupy the
attention of all thoughtful men. The English were undeniably angry, the
Wilkes affair was dividing parties and sowing dissension between
statesmen, and America was threateningly restless. The King's treatment
of the City's remonstrance[86] had aroused to a fine frenzy habitually
calm folk, and discontent was so rife that rebellion itself was in the
minds of many Englishmen. "The tumults of London, in March, 1769, which
menaced with insult or attack even the palace of the sovereign, bore no
feeble resemblance to the riotous disorders that preceded the Civil
Wars, under Charles the First," Wraxall wrote. "A Hearse, followed by
the mob, was drawn into the Court-yard at St. James's, decorated with
insignia of the most humiliating and indecent description. I have always
understood that the late Lord Mountmorris, then a very young man, was
the person who on that occasion personated the executioner, holding an
axe in his hands, and his face covered with a crape. The King's firmness
did not, however, desert him, in the midst of these trying ebullitions
of democratic rage. He remained calm and unmoved in the Drawing-room,
while the streets surrounding his residence echoed with the shouts of an
enraged multitude, who seemed disposed to proceed to the greatest
extremities."[87]
[86] See _ante_ vol. I, pp. 266-7.
[87] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
Horace Walpole was somewhat perturbed at the situation. "The English may
be soothed: I have never heard that they were to be frightened," he
wrote. "This is my creed and all our history supports it." The King,
however, seemed bent on desperate measures and, according to _The
Whisperer_ (February 24, 1770), When the Marquis of Granby resigned his
employments, the King said to him, "Granby, do you think the army would
fight for me?" To which the Marquis nobly replied, "I believe, Sir, some
of your officers would, but I will not answer for the men."[88] This
state of turmoil gave a great unholy joy to David Hume: "I am delighted
to see the daily and hourly progress of madness, and folly, and
wickedness in England," he wrote from Edinburgh. "The consummation of
these fine qualities are the ingredients for making a fine narrative in
history, especially if followed by some signal and ruinous convulsion,
as I hope will soon be the case with that pernicious people. He must be
a very bad cook who cannot make a palatable dish from the whole."
[88] "We have independent mobs that have nothing to do with Wilkes, and
who only take advantage of so favourable a season. The dearness of
provisions incites--the hope of increase of wages allures--and drink
puts them in motion. The coal-heavers began; and it is well it is not a
hard frost, for they have stopped all coals coming to town. The sawyers
rose, too, and at last the sailors, who have committed great outrages in
merchant-ships and prevented their sailing."--Horace Walpole, May, 1768.
The duel between Chatham and Grafton took place during the debate on the
Address. The Earl who, owing to his ill-health had never yet done
justice to his oratorical powers in the House of Lords, now made a
splendid fighting speech, in which after expressing the good-will he
bore his fellow-subjects in America, he denounced the proceedings
against Wilkes and the American policy of the ministry. This was the
signal for the other malcontents to engage. "I accepted the Great Seal
without conditions," Lord Camden states in the House of Lords. "I meant
not therefore to be trammelled by his Majesty--(I beg pardon) by his
ministers; but I have suffered myself to be too long. For some time I
have beheld, with silent indignation, the arbitrary measures of the
minister; I have often drooped and hung down my head in Council, and
disapproved by my looks those steps which I knew my avowed opposition
could not prevent; I will do so no longer, but openly and boldly speak
my sentiments." The Duke of Beaufort and the Duke of Manchester, the
Earl of Coventry and the Earl of Huntingdon gave up their offices at
Court; and the resignation of James Grenville, Vice-Treasurer of
Ireland, and Dunning, Solicitor-General, followed, together with that of
Lord Granby, Commander-in-Chief and Master of the Ordnance, who retained
only his colonelcy of the Blues.
Lord Camden was dismissed immediately after his speech, but great
difficulty was found in filling his place. The Woolsack was offered to
Mansfield, and then to Sir Eardley Wilmot, Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, neither of whom would accept it, partly because there was then no
retiring pension for a Lord Chancellor, and it was too great a risk to
give up a lucrative position for a post the tenure of which was so
precarious.[89] The Great Seal was then offered to Charles Yorke, who
declined on the ground that he did not wish to desert the Rockingham
party. The King sent for him on January 17 and charged him on his
loyalty to accept the office, declaring if he did not do so, the Lord
Chancellorship would never again under any circumstances be offered to
him. Thus pressed, Yorke accepted very reluctantly, but the annoyance
told upon his feeble health, and he died three days later--by his own
hand, it was whispered. The patent that raised him to the peerage was
made out and awaited only the impress of the Great Seal. When he was
dying he was asked to authorise that impression, but he refused, and
added with a shudder that he hoped the Great Seal was no longer in his
custody.[90] "Nothing was now left for the Duke of Grafton but to get
himself out of the way before "Junius" had time to point the moral. It
was impossible for him to continue Prime Minister after the most
ambitious lawyer at the bar had thought death a less evil than the
disgrace of being his Chancellor."[91] "Junius" was not to be baulked of
his prey, however, and referred to the episode in a letter to the Duke
of Grafton, dated February 14, 1770. "To what an abject condition have
you laboured to reduce the best of princes, when the unhappy man who
yields at last to such personal instance and solicitation as can never
be fairly employed against a subject feels himself degraded by his
compliance, and is unable to survive the disgraceful honours which his
gracious sovereign had compelled him to accept."
[89] Lord Camden was a poor man, and would have been much inconvenienced
by his dismissal, had not Chatham earlier secured to him a pension of
£1,500.
[90] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[91] Trevelyan: _Early Life of C. J. Fox_.
The Duke resigned on January 28, and Chatham was avenged.
During the absence of Lord Chatham, George III had gained a complete
ascendancy over the ministry and, now that Grafton had retired, he was
determined not to yield the control of affairs without a struggle. He
wanted, not a minister with views of his own, but one who would obey
instructions. Such a man was Lord North,[92] who, backed by the weight
of the royal influence, was the ostensible Prime Minister for the
ensuing twelve years.[93]
[92] Frederick, Lord North (1732-1792), succeeded his father as second
Earl of Guilford in 1790. He is, however, better known as Lord North.
[93] "As Lord Bute gradually retired into the shade of private life, and
became insensibly forgotten, Mr. Jenkinson proportionately came forward
in his own person, and on his own proper merits. Throughout the whole
period of Lord North's administration from 1770 down to 1782, his
intercourse with the King, and even his influence over the royal mind,
were assumed to be constant, progressive, commensurate with, and
sometimes paramount to, or subversive of, the measures proposed by the
First Minister. However difficult of proof such assertions were, and
however contrary, as I believe, they were to truth or fact, they did not
operate the less forcibly on the bulk of the nation, and were not less
eagerly credited by men of all parties. No denials on the part of
persons in power could erase the impression, which newspapers and
pamphlets industriously circulated throughout the kingdom."--Wraxall:
Historical Memoirs of My Own Times.
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a painting by Nathaniel Dance_
FREDERICK NORTH, SECOND EARL OF GUILFORD
_To face p. 72, Vol. II_]
North had gained his official experience as a Junior Lord of the
Treasury, and as a joint-Paymaster of the Forces. At first he had not
created a favourable impression, but there were discerning persons who
saw early he would come to the fore. His appearance was much against
him. "Nothing could be more coarse, or clumsy, or ungracious than his
outside," Horace Walpole said. "Two large prominent eyes that rolled
about to no purpose--for he was utterly short-sighted--a wide mouth,
thick lips, and inflated visage, gave him the air of a blind
trumpeter."[94] "Here comes blubbering North. I wonder what he is
getting by heart, for I am sure it can be nothing of his own," some one
said to Grenville, seeing North in the park, apparently rehearsing a
speech. "North is a man of great promise and high qualifications,"
replied Grenville; "and if he does not relax in his political pursuits,
he is very likely to be Prime Minister." Lord Rockingham thought well
enough of him to invite him to become Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, an
offer which, at the King's instigation, he eventually declined.
[94] _Memoirs of George III._
"It cost him, North, many bitter pangs, not to preserve his virtue, but
his vicious connexions," wrote Walpole. "He goggled his eyes, and groped
in his pocket money, more than half consented; nay, so much more, that
when he got home, he wrote an excuse to Lord Rockingham, which made it
plain he thought he had accepted." Nor was Charles Townshend in any
doubt as to North's abilities. "See that great heavy, booby-looking
seeming changeling," said Townshend when Chancellor of the Exchequer;
"you may believe me when I assure you as a fact, that if anything should
happen to me, he will succeed to my place, and very shortly after come
to be First Commissioner of the Treasury."[95] The prediction was
fulfilled, for when Townshend died, Lord North became Chancellor of the
Exchequer under Chatham, and was retained in that position by Grafton.
[95] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
North had, indeed, most of the qualifications that make a good leader of
the House of Commons. He was witty, good-humoured, undisturbed by
personal attacks, and undeniably honest. "He was a man of admirable
parts, of general knowledge, of a versatile understanding, fitted for
every sort of business, of infinite wit and pleasantry, of a delightful
temper, and with a mind most perfectly disinterested," wrote Burke; "but
it would be only to degrade myself by a weak adulation, and not to
honour the memory of a great man, to deny that he wanted something of
the vigilance and spirit of command that the time required."[96] He was
an excellent debater, and managed to retain his hold on the House even
when the Opposition was led, first by Burke and then by Chatham.
[96] _Letter to a Noble Lord._
It had been Chatham's hope that, when the Duke of Grafton resigned, the
King would be compelled to dissolve Parliament; but the King, on his
side, was determined not to make an appeal to the country, which he was
well aware would return an adverse majority and so compel him to receive
the Whig families back into power. "I will have recourse to this," he
said, laying his hand on his sword, "sooner than yield to a
dissolution." In his hour of difficulty George turned to North, who came
to his assistance, and formed a ministry, for which service the King was
grateful, until many years later North coalesced with Fox. He bestowed
upon him the posts of Ranger of Bushey Park, and Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports, with a most acceptable stipend, and promised to bestow the
Order of the Garter upon him, "which I shall do with the greater
pleasure as I never have had any intimation from you that it is an
honour you are in the least ambitious of."[97] He also expressed a
desire in September, 1777, to discharge out of his Privy Purse his Prime
Minister's debts. "Having paid the last arrears on the Civil List, I
must now do the same for you," he wrote. "I have understood, from your
hints, that you have been in debt ever since you settled in life. I must
therefore insist that you allow me to assist you with £10,000, or
£15,000, or £20,000, if that will be sufficient. It will be easy for you
to make an arrangement, or at proper times to take up that sum. You know
me very ill if you think not that, of all the letters I ever wrote you,
this one gives me the greatest pleasure; and I want no other return but
your being convinced that I love you as well as a man of worth, as I
esteem you as a minister. Your conduct at a critical moment I can never
forget."[98]
[97] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[98] _Ibid._
The King took for his part the management of the House of Commons, and
it was work that suited his capabilities. It has already been mentioned
that at his accession he began to study public business, and so far as
the details were concerned he made great progress. "He knew all about
the family histories and genealogies of his gentry, and pretty histories
he must have known. He knew the whole _Army list_; and all the facings
and the exact number of buttons, and all the tags and laces, and the cut
of all the cocked hats, pigtails and gaiters in his army. He knew the
_personnel_ of the Universities; what doctors were inclined to
Socinianism, and who were sound Churchmen; he knew the etiquette of his
own and his grandfather's Courts to a nicety, and the smallest
particulars regarding the routine of ministers, secretaries, embassies,
audiences; the smallest page in the ante-room or the meanest helper in
the kitchen or stables. These parts of the royal business he was capable
of learning, and he learned."[99] This, however, by no means exhausts
the list of his qualifications. Not the most scrupulous electioneering
agent knew more tricks than he, or was better acquainted with the
figures of the voting in all the constituencies, or the names and views
of likely candidates.
[99] Thackeray: _The Four Georges_.
George III reduced bribery to a fine art, and, parsimonious as he was in
his own affairs, he had no hesitation in buying the patron of a borough
or in paying the debts of a man who was willing to stand as the "King's
Friend" at the next election. "If the Duke of Northumberland requires
some gold pills for the election, it would be wrong not to give him some
assistance," he wrote to North before the Middlesex election in 1779.
North declared that the expenses of election in 1779, 1780 and 1781,
paid for by Government amounted to £53,000, and that the preceding
general election cost £50,000 in addition to pensions of the annual
value of £15,000! Enormous as was the Civil List, it could not support
these outlays in addition to its regular expenses with which it was
charged; and soon there was presented the strange spectacle of a House
of Commons being invited to make good the deficit that had been caused
chiefly by the bribes given to or for members of its body. On February
28, 1770, Lord North asked Parliament to discharge the King's debts,
which amounted to £513,511, and although this sum was voted, it was only
after a heated debate. The King was horrified to learn that Dowdeswell
in the House of Commons and Rockingham in the House of Lords had moved
that particulars of each expense should be specified, and that the
papers might distinguish under which administration each debt had been
incurred. Burke and Grenville supported the motion in the Commons, and
in the Lords Chatham made a rousing speech that voiced the feelings of
the nation. What had been done with the money, he wanted to know, that
there should be this great deficit? The King had built no palaces, he
had not lavished great sums on pictures or statuary, he had not rewarded
distinguished soldiers and sailors with large pensions; the expenses of
his household were, comparatively speaking, small, and the price of
commodities was lower than in the preceding reign, and, although his
Majesty was not illiberal in his charities, the outlay in this direction
had certainly not impoverished him. No, he concluded, the money had been
devoted to the support of sinecure posts to be held by minor politicians
and in other ways to pervert the honesty of Parliament.
The King, regarding himself as above criticism, was greatly incensed by
this speech, and his anger was increased in the following year when Sir
Edward Astley moved for a return of pensions granted since the
commencement of the Parliament then sitting. "I cannot help expressing
some surprise," he wrote to Lord North on April 5, 1770, "at seeing
Lieutenant-General Conway's name in support of Sir Edward Astley's
motion, which is so antiquated an Opposition's point, but which no
candid man could be supposed to adopt."[100] It was, therefore, with
great reluctance that in May, 1770, he applied again, through Lord
North, for another grant. Further delay was impossible, however, for
even his household bills were unpaid and his servants' wages were six
quarters in arrears. North asked for £600,000 to settle pressing demands
and an increase to the Civil List of £100,000 a year. The request again
provoked much candid criticism. Fox taunted the Prime Minister with the
pledge he had given when he was in office in 1769 that no such demand
should be made again; and other members pointed out that in the accounts
the pensions amounted to £438,000, that there were items of £171,000 and
£114,000 for secret service, and that furthermore the accounts very
obviously had been falsified. The grant was eventually made, but when
Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker of the House of Commons, presented the
Civil List Bill to the King, he made a speech. "Your Majesty's faithful
Commons have granted a great sum to discharge the debt of the Civil
List; and considering that whatever enables your Majesty to support with
grandeur, honour and dignity, the crown of Great Britain, in its true
lustre, will reflect honour on the nation, they have given most
liberally, even in these times of danger and difficulty, taxed almost
beyond ability to bear; and they have now granted to your Majesty an
income far exceeding your Majesty's highest wants, _hoping that what
they have given cheerfully, your Majesty will spend wisely_." The
"King's Friends" voiced their indignation at this address, but Fox moved
"that the Speaker did express, with just and proper energy, the zeal of
the House for the support of the honour and dignity of the Crown in
circumstances of great public charge," and he carried the House with him
in a vote of thanks to Sir Fletcher Norton.
[100] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
After this stern rebuke, even George III had not courage enough to apply
again to Parliament, but as the lavish corruption continued, money had
to be found, and to provide for his master's necessities, North
sacrificed his financial reputation. In 1781 he raised a loan of
£12,000,000 upon terms so liberal as to give the bondholders a return of
ten per cent., but instead of following the usual course of inviting
bankers to become subscribers, he divided the much desired stock among
the supporters of the Government in both Houses, who were thus
handsomely rewarded for their services. This was so disgraceful a
proceeding that even a servile House of Commons could not overlook it,
and the transaction was undoubtedly one of the causes that contributed
to North's overthrow in the following year.[101]
[101] On February 15, 1802, Addington delivered a message to the Commons
from the King. "His Majesty feels great concern in acquainting the House
of Commons that the provision made by Parliament for defraying the
expenses of his household, and civil government, has been found
inadequate to their support. A considerable debt has, in consequence,
been unavoidably incurred, an account of which he has ordered to be laid
before this House. His Majesty relies with confidence on the zeal and
affection of his faithful Commons, that they will take the same into
their early consideration, and adopt such measures as the circumstances
may appear to them to require." The amount required was in round figures
£1,000,000, and the reasons alleged for the deficit were the dearness of
provisions, the expenses caused by the younger princes and princesses
who were growing up, the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the
support of Princess Charlotte of Wales.
No scruple as to kingly dignity restrained George III from endeavouring
to profit by the glamour that surrounds the throne. "I am sorry to find
the Attorney-General (Thurlow) rather retracts. I feel the propriety of
keeping him in his present situation; and if any kindness from me on
Wednesday can effect it, you may rest assured he shall be got into
thorough good temper," he wrote to North on June 7, 1774; and on another
day, "The last division was nearer than some persons will have expected,
but not more than I thought. I hope every engine will be employed to get
those friends that stayed away last night to come and support on Monday.
I wish a list could be prepared of those who went away, and those that
deserted to the minority. _That would be a rule for my conduct in the
Drawing-room to-morrow._"[102] "I am so desirous that every man in my
service should take part in the Debate on Tuesday," he wrote again on
January 7, 1770, "that I desire you will very strongly press Sir G.
Elliot and any others that have not taken a part last session. I have no
objection to your adding that I have particularly directed you to speak
to them."[103] "I consent," he wrote on April 21, 1775, "to Sir Watkin
Williams (Wynn) being Lieutenant of Merioneth, _if he means to be
grateful_, otherwise favours granted to persons in opposition is not
very political."[104]
[102] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[103] _Ibid._
[104] _Ibid._
George made it quite clear that to attack the Government or vote against
it was regarded by him as a personal insult, and he was determined that
no man should do so with impunity. "Lord North's attention in correcting
the impression I had that Colonel Burgoyne and Lieutenant-Colonel
Harcourt were absent yesterday is very handsome to those gentlemen, for
I certainly should have thought myself obliged to have named a new
Governor in the room of the former, and to have removed the other from
my Bedchamber,"[105] he wrote on March 12, 1772, in reference to a
division on the Royal Marriage Act; and when the Prime Minister
suggested that Chatham's pension should be settled in reversion on his
younger son, William Pitt: "The making Lord Chatham's family suffer for
the conduct of their father is not in the least agreeable to me," he
replied, on August 9, 1775. "But I should choose to know him to be
totally unable to appear again on the public stage before I agree to any
offer of that kind, lest it should wrongly be construed into a fear of
him; and indeed his political conduct the last winter was so abandoned,
that he must, in the eyes of the dispassionate, have totally undone all
the merit of his former conduct. As to any gratitude to be expected from
him or his family, the whole tenor of their lives has shown them void of
that most honourable sentiment. But _when decrepitude or death puts an
end to him as a trumpet of sedition_, I shall make no difficulty in
placing the second son's name instead of the father's, and making up the
pension £3,000."[106]
[105] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[106] _Ibid._
The truth is that George III was vindictive, though he would have been
the last to admit this, for never doubting he was always in the right,
he was confident that what to others seemed revenge, was actually only
legitimate punishment meted out to the wrong-doer. "He has a kind of
unhappiness in his temper, which, if it be not conquered before it has
taken too deep a root, will be the source of frequent anxiety," Lord
Waldegrave had written when he was the royal Governor. "Whenever he is
displeased, his anger does not break out with heat and violence, but he
becomes sullen and silent, and retires to his closet, not to compose his
mind by study and contemplation, but merely to indulge the melancholy
enjoyment of his own ill-humour. Even when the fit is ended,
unfavourable symptoms too frequently return, which indicate that on
certain occasions his Royal Highness has too correct a memory."[107]
This serious blemish lasted all the days of his life, and was noticeable
particularly in his attitude towards Chatham and, later, towards Fox.
[107] _Memoirs of Lord Waldegrave._
"How many Secretaries of State have you corresponded with?" the King
once asked an ex-Governor of Gibraltar. "Five, Sire," was the reply.
"You see my situation. The trade of politics is a rascally business.
It's a trade for a scoundrel, and not for a gentleman." So George III
unconsciously passed judgment on himself, for it is clear that he had
much to do with making politics a trade. Reflect upon the treatment he
meted out to Rockingham, as upright a statesman who could be found in
the three kingdoms, whose dismissal was chiefly due to the fact that he
was too honest. "Rockingham had a way of listening to a questionable
proposal that was more alarming to George III even than the eloquence of
Pitt or the lengthiness of Grenville."[108]
[108] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
It is interesting, in the light of this knowledge, to turn to a
contemporary portrait of the King as a statesman. "Never was any prince
more religiously tenacious of his engagements or promises. Even the
temporary privation of his intellect did not affect his regard to the
assurances that he had given previous to such alienation of mind; nor,
which is still more wonderful, obliterate them from his recollection. I
know that on his recovery from the severest visitations under which he
has laboured he has said to his minister, in the first moment of his
convalescence, 'Previous to my attack of illness I made such and such
promises; they must be effectuated,'" wrote Wraxall. "Satisfied with the
legitimate power entrusted to him by the British Constitution, and
deeply impressed with the sanctity as well as the inviolability of the
oath administered to him at his coronation, George the Third did not
desire to pass the limits of his rightful prerogative. But, equally
tenacious of his just pretensions and firm in resisting popular violence
and innovation, he never receded from any point or abandoned any
measure, under the impulse of personal apprehension. His courage was
calm, temperate, and steady. It was constitutional and hereditary; but
it was always sustained by conviction, sense of public duty, and
religion."[109] Yet when politics were concerned, George was not so
tenacious of his word as to fulfil it to a member of the Opposition. To
give one instance. He had, in 1765, promised the reversion of the
colonelcy of the Blues to the Duke of Richmond, but when the holder of
the command, Lord Granby, died in October, 1770, he immediately
appointed Conway to the vacant post. "The Duke of Richmond, who did not
expect that engagement would be kept to him, now in earnest opposition,
wrote an artfully handsome letter to the King, to release him from that
promise," Walpole has related; "but his Majesty had violated it before
he received the Duke's dispensation and made no answer."[110]
[109] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
[110] _Memoirs of George III._
However, Wraxall was, perhaps, not wrong in his belief that George III
was sustained by "conviction, sense of public duty and religion," as at
a first reading might be supposed. "In all that related to his kingly
office he was the slave of deep-rooted selfishness; and no feeling of a
kindly nature was ever allowed access to his bosom whenever his power
was concerned, either in its maintenance, or in the manner of exercising
it," Brougham has written. "The instant that his prerogative was
concerned, and his bigotry interfered with, or his will thwarted, the
most unbending pride, the most bitter animosity, the most calculating
coldness of heart, the most unforgiving resentment, took possession of
his whole breast, and swayed it by turns. The habits of friendship, the
ties of blood, the dictates of conscience, the rules of honesty were
alike forgotten; and the fury of the tyrant with the resources of a
cunning which mental alienation is supposed to whet, were ready to
circumvent or to destroy all who interposed an obstacle to the
fierceness of unbridled desire."[111] Doubtless George did his duty
according to his lights, with indomitable spirit, contending with
unflinching courage as readily against the greatest as the weakest of
his ministers. He certainly believed it was the right of a King to
govern, and his narrow understanding coupled with an obstinate
disposition made him hold that to achieve this any methods were
justifiable.
[111] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._
The greatest misfortune was that, while George III acquired a thorough
acquaintance with the duties of each of the departments of state, there
his knowledge ended. He knew how things should be done: never what to
do; and the pity of it was that his ambition was not confined within the
range of his abilities. He insisted upon being consulted in all matters,
which was right and proper. "Not a step was taken in foreign, colonial,
or domestic affairs, that he did not form his opinion upon it, and
exercise his influence over it. The instructions to ambassadors, the
orders to governors, the movements of forces down to marching of a
single battalion in the districts of this country, the appointments to
all office in church and state, not only the giving away of judgeships,
bishoprics, regiments, but the subordinate promotions, lay and
clerical."[112] All these are the topics of his letters, only
unfortunately on all these matters "his opinion is pronounced
decisively; on all his will is declared peremptorily."[113] When all
England was troubled by the reverses of the American war the sovereign
was exercising his wits upon the appointment of a Scotch puisne judge
and a Dean of Worcester, or was busy drawing up the march of a troop
from Buckinghamshire into Yorkshire. If only he had confined himself to
such matters!
[112] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._
[113] _Ibid._
"I know he was a constant consort; own
He was a decent sire, and middling lord.
All this is much, and most upon a throne;
As temperance, if at Apicius' board,
Is more than at an anchorite's supper shown.
I grant him all the kindest can accord.
And this was well for him, but not for those
Millions who found him what Oppression chose."[114]
[114] Byron: _The Vision of Judgment_.
North as a High Tory was prepared on taking office to carry out the
King's policy so long as he could approve of it and even so long as he
could abstain from active disapproval; but unfortunately for his
reputation he remained in office and acted as the King's spokesman long
after affairs were directed in a manner contrary to the dictates of his
own conscience. "Submission in the Closet and corruption in the Commons"
were, according to Sir George Trevelyan, the watchwords of the Prime
Minister; and this indictment cannot be contravened. In mitigation of
sentence however, it may be urged that it was made very difficult for
him to withdraw from office. "I certainly did not come into office by my
own desire," he declared in the House of Commons. "Had I my wish, I
would have quitted it a hundred times; but as to my resigning now, look
at the transactions of this day, and say whether it is possible for a
man with a grain of spirit, with a grain of sense, to think of
withdrawing from the service of his King and his country at such a
moment. Unhappy that I am, that moment finds me in this situation; and
there are but two ways in which I can now cease to be minister;--by the
will of my sovereign, which I shall be ready to obey; or by the pleasure
of the gentlemen now at our doors, when they shall be able to do a
little more than they have done this day."
Again and again the Prime Minister resigned, only to be implored not to
desert his master. Many writers have spoken of North's fondness for
office as the reason for his remaining at the head of affairs, but his
indolence and the King's appeals to his compassion were two powerful
reasons for his continuing to hold the post of Prime Minister. His
position, indeed, was no bed of roses, for he was the last man in the
world to find pleasure in unpopularity. "In all my memory," he said
pathetically, "I do not remember a single popular measure I ever voted
for;" and the truth of this remark is patent to all who are acquainted
with the conduct of the affairs of state at this time, for the minister
shared, or at least supported, the mistakes of the King. "To those who
can for a moment forget the misfortunes which the perversity of George
III entailed upon his country, there is an element of the comical in the
roundness and vehemence with which he invariably declared himself upon
the wrong side in a controversy," Sir George Trevelyan has put the
situation admirably. "Whether he was predicting that the publication of
debates would 'annihilate the House of Commons, and thus put an end to
the most excellent form of government which has been established in this
kingdom;' or denouncing the 'indecency' of a well-meaning senator who
had protested against the double impropriety of establishing state
lotteries, and then using them as an engine for bribing Members of
Parliament; or explaining the reluctance of an assembly of English
gentlemen and landowners to plunder the Duke of Portland of his estate
by the theory that there was no 'truth, justice, and even honour' among
them; he displayed an inability to tolerate, or even to understand, any
view but his own, which can only be accounted for by the reflection that
he was at the same time a partisan and a monarch. He could never forgive
a politician for taking the right course, unless it was taken from a
wrong motive." The fact of the matter was that the King was always to be
found in arms against liberty.
"He ever warred with freedom and the free
Nations as men, home subjects, foreign foes,
So that they uttered the word 'Liberty!'
Found George the Third their first opponent. Whose
History was ever stained as his will be
With national and individual woes?"[115]
[115] Byron: _The Vision of Judgment_.
He was against Wilkes, naturally enough against "Junius," he took an
active interest in fostering opposition to the "Nullum Tempus" Bill, the
object of which was to protect the subjects against dormant claims of
the Crown, and he treated America like a wayward child.
"He came to his sceptre young; he leaves it old:
Look to the state in which he found his realm,
And left it; and his annals too behold,
How to a minion first he gave the helm:
How grew upon his heart a thirst for gold,
The beggar's vice, which can but overwhelm
The meanest hearts; and for the rest, but glance
Thine eye along America and France."[116]
[116] _Ibid._
Mistake after mistake was made by the King and his government, not the
least serious of which was the persecution of Admiral Keppel. When it
became known that a treaty had been entered into between America and
France, Keppel was sent, in June, 1777, to watch the French coast. He
discovered a large French fleet at Brest ready to set sail, and
returned to Portsmouth for reinforcements. Both fleets put to sea on
July 9, and sighted each other a fortnight later, when the enemy was
unwilling to fight, and Keppel with a force still inferior could not
force an engagement until the 27th inst. off Ushant. Much damage was
done to both sides, and the fleets drew off for repairs, but when the
signal was given to renew, Sir Hugh Palliser was either unable or
unwilling to obey, and his delay enabled the French to escape. Keppel
screened his second-in-command, but rumour could not be stilled, and
letters appeared in the newspapers making serious allegations against
Palliser, who demanded from his superior officer a complete vindication,
which the latter declined to give. The matter was brought up in the
House of Commons at the beginning of December, and there ensued an angry
debate in which Palliser charged Keppel with misconduct. Keppel was a
member of the Opposition, and though he had been informed in 1776 that
his services might be required, no notice was taken of him at Court in
the interval. Indeed, as he afterwards remarked, his "forty years'
endeavours were not marked by the possession of any one favour from the
Crown except that of its confidence in time of danger."[117] Keppel
was court-martialled, and the Court sat from January 7, 1779, for
thirty-two days; amidst great public excitement. Though, to a great
extent, the affair had been made a party question, Keppel had more than
political support, for a memorial signed by twelve admirals was
presented to the King by the Duke of Bolton,[118] in which they remarked
on the impropriety of the Board of Admiralty sanctioning charges made by
"their colleague in office" against his commander, and pointing out
that, if such a practice be countenanced, it would not be easy for men
attentive to their honour to serve his Majesty, particularly in
situations of principal command.[119]
[117] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[118] Harry Powlett, sixth Duke of Bolton--the "Captain Whiffle" of
_Roderick Random_.
[119] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[Illustration: _From a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds_
ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL
_To face p. 94, Vol. II_]
The news of Keppel's acquittal arrived in London on February 11 between
nine and ten o'clock in the evening, and before an hour had elapsed
nearly every house in the metropolis was illuminated. The windows of the
mansions of Lord North and Lord George Germaine were broken, the
Admiralty was attacked, Palliser was hung in effigy, his house broken
into, and his furniture carried into St. James's Square, and there
burned by an angry, excited mob. "If you had any doubts about the truth
of the accounts of the trial of Admiral Keppel, I suppose you will
hardly credit the enthusiasm that has seized England and Ireland about
him," Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on March 9, 1779,
"and yet nothing is more true than the general and wild joy that has
animated all ranks of people. What a flattering thing it is to obtain
much more than a Roman triumph _merely_ for being an honest man, and a
just, brave and humane officer, whose conduct has won him the hearts of
a whole fleet, of a whole kingdom. How much more glorious is such a
triumph than the pomp of war and all its melancholy honours. It is
impossible not to envy him."[120]
[120] Lady Sarah Lennox: _Life and Letters_.
After this the King regarded Keppel as his personal enemy, and, as we
have said, used his influence against the Admiral when he stood as
parliamentary candidate for Windsor in 1779. A certain silk-mercer, a
stout Keppelite, would subsequently mimic the King's peculiar voice and
manner as his Majesty entered his shop and muttered in his hurried way:
"The Queen wants a gown--wants a gown. No Keppel!--no Keppel! What,
what, what!" Keppel lost the election, but the King paid heavily for his
victory. "With all due respect to his Majesty I say it, but in my
opinion he has hurt himself a great deal more than he has hurt the
admiral in using his influence and authority to make him lose Windsor,"
Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on September 22, 1780. "A
seat in _this_ Parliament and in _these_ times is no such very valuable
privilege as to break an honest man's heart if he loses it, particularly
when, as at Windsor, the electors come to him with the most affected
countenances saying, 'Sir, we honour, we esteem, we love you, we wish
you were our member, but our bread depends upon our refusing you our
votes; we are ordered to go against you, and you are too good to wish us
ruined by his Majesty's anger.' ... There are strange reports about all
the underhand and indeed some _open_ ways used to force the Windsor
people to vote against him."[121]
[121] Lady Sarah Lennox: _Life and Letters_.
CHAPTER XVII
THE ROYAL FAMILY
The troubles of George III were not exclusively the result of his
incursions into politics, for he had much worry in connexion with most
of his brothers and sisters, sometimes through their fault and sometimes
through the circumstances in which they were placed. Exclusive of his
heir, Frederick, Prince of Wales, left behind him six children. His
youngest son, Frederick William, died in 1765 at the age of fifteen; "an
amiable youth and the most promising, it was thought, of the family. The
hereditary disorder in his blood had fallen on his lungs and turned to a
consumption."[122] A daughter, Louisa Anne, fell a victim to the same
disease three years later; but this was a happy release, for, afflicted
with bodily disease from her infancy, she was so remarkably small for
her age that though she had completed her nineteenth year, she looked
like a child of about thirteen.[123] There remained the Dukes of York,
Gloucester, and Cumberland, and the Princesses Augusta and Caroline
Matilda.
[122] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[123] _Ibid._
The Princes probably inherited from their father a love of pleasure, and
this had doubtless been quickened by the restrictions imposed upon them
when they were in the custody of the Princess Dowager. She kept them in
such rigid durance that when Prince Henry, a lively lad, was asked if he
had been confined with the epidemic cold, he replied: "Confined, that I
am, but without any cold." It was, therefore, only to be expected that
as soon as the boys could escape from leading-strings, they would kick
over the traces, and plunge gaily and unthinkingly into all the
pleasures that await princes in this world.
Edward Augustus, afterwards Duke of York, as the eldest of the brothers,
was the first to secure his liberty. "Sir Charles [Hanbury Williams]'s
daughter, Lady Essex,[124] has engaged the attention of Prince Edward,
who has got his liberty, seems extremely disposed to use it, and has
great life and good-humour; she has already made a ball for him,"
Walpole wrote to Sir Horace Mann in January, 1757, when the Prince was
eighteen; and soon William Henry, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, and
Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, made their bow to society, and
became much in evidence. "Every place is like one of Shakespeare's
plays: Enter the Dukes of York, Gloucester, and attendants."
[124] Charlotte, Countess of Essex.
The Duke of York was of an amorous disposition and at an early age had
love passages with the Duchess of Richmond,[125] with Lady
Stanhope,[126] and with the Countess of Tyrconnel, of the last of whom
Wraxall has left a description: "my particular acquaintance, feminine
and delicate as her figure, very fair, with a profusion of light
hair."[127] The Duke was further said to be engaged to that Lady Mary
Coke of whom Lady Temple wrote:
"She sometimes laughs, but never loud,
She's handsome, too, but sometimes proud.
At court she bears away the bell,
She dresses fine and figures well;
With decency she's gay and airy;
Who can this be but Lady Mary?"
And Lady Mary was said to have taken his intentions so seriously that
now and then, in the belief that she was married to him, she signed her
name like a royal personage.[128] "The Duke of York has £3,000 a year
added to his income, which makes it £15,000," said Lady Sarah Lennox in
December, 1764. "He is in great spirits and has begun giving balls." He
drained the cup of pleasure to the dregs, but found death in the
pleasant draught. He went abroad in 1767, caught cold at a ball given by
the Duc de Villars at his country seat, and, refusing to take care of
himself, became ill, and died at Monaco on September 17.
[125] Wife of Charles, third Duke of Richmond.
[126] Wife of Sir William Stanhope.
[127] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._ "Her husband, the Earl of
Tyrconnel, might be said to contribute about this time more than any
nobleman about the court to the recreation of the reigning family, for,
while his wife formed the object of the homage of one prince of the
blood, his sister, had long presided in the affections of another. Lady
Almeria Carpenter, one of the most beautiful women of her time, but to
whom Nature had been sparing of intellectual gifts, was the person that
attracted the Duke of Gloucester, who soon forgot all he had gone
through for his wife."
[128] _Letters of Lady Jane Coke._
"His immoderate pursuit of pleasure and unremitted fatigues in
travelling beyond his strength, succeeded without interruption by balls
and entertainments, had thrown his blood, naturally distempered and full
of humours, into a state that brought on a putrid and irresistible
fever," Walpole wrote. "He suffered considerably, but with a heroism
becoming a great Prince. Before he died he wrote a penitential letter to
the King (though, in truth, he had no faults but what his youth made
pardonable), and tenderly recommended his servants to him. The Prince of
Monaco, though his favourite child was then under inoculation at Paris,
remained with and waited on him to his last breath, omitting nothing
that tenderness could supply or his royal birth demand. The Duke of York
had lately passed some time in the French Court, and by the quickness of
his replies, by his easy frankness, and (in him) unusual propriety of
conduct, had won much on the affection of the King of France, and on the
rest of the Court, though his loose and perpetually rolling eyes, his
short sight, and the singular whiteness of his hair, which, the French
said, resembled feathers, by no means bespoke prejudice in his favour.
His temper was good, his generosity royal, and his parts not defective:
but his inarticulate loquacity and the levity of his conduct,
unsupported by any countenance from the King, his brother, had conspired
to place him but low in the estimation of his countrymen. As he could
obtain no credit from the King's unfeeling nature, he was in a situation
to do little good; as he had been gained by the Opposition, he might
have done hurt--at least so much to the King that his death was little
lamented. Nor can we judge whether more years and experience would have
corrected his understanding or corrupted his heart, nor whether, which
is most probable, they would not have done both."[129]
[129] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[Illustration: _From a portrait by L. F. Liolard_
HENRY FREDERICK, DUKE OF CUMBERLAND]
[Illustration: _From a portrait by H. D. Hamilton_
WILLIAM HENRY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
_To face p. 102, Vol. II_]
The Duke of York was foolish and dissipated, and though Mr. Cole says,
"I have been told that his private conversation was as weak and low as
his person was contemptible," he was not without good qualities, and it
is difficult to quarrel with Sir George Trevelyan, who, speaking of the
sons of Frederick, Prince of Wales, says, "Death gradually thinned the
illustrious group, carrying off princes whom the world pronounced
hopeful and promising in exact proportion as they died young."[130]
Certainly the Duke of York compares favourably with the two brothers who
survived him.
[130] _Early Life of C. J. Fox._
"The Duke of Gloucester is following his [the Duke of York's] steps, and
has supped at Lady Harrington's and trots about like anything," Lady
Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on December 16, 1764; and, in
due course, the Duke of Cumberland, emancipated from maternal control,
entered upon his unedifying career as a man about town. There was,
however, a marked difference between the brothers. The elder was,
according to Walpole, who did not usually present an agreeable picture
of a member of the royal family, "reserved, serious, pious, of the most
decent and sober deportment, and possessing a plain understanding,
though of no brilliance," and the same authority adds that "an honorable
_amour_ which totally engrossed him preserved him from the
irregularities into which his brothers Edward and Henry fell."[131]
[131] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
The honourable _amour_ to which Walpole alludes was the Duke's
attachment to Maria, the widow of James, second Earl of Waldegrave. Lady
Waldegrave was a natural daughter of Sir Edward Walpole by Mrs.
Clements, a milliner, and so was a niece of the famous letter-writer,
who took the greatest interest in her welfare. After the death of her
first husband in 1763, she was still a reigning beauty, and was besieged
with offers of marriage including one from "the greatest match of the
day," the Duke of Portland. She refused all her suitors, and her name
began to be coupled with that of the Duke of Gloucester.[132] "The
report of this week is that the King has forbid the Duke of Gloucester
to speak to his pretty widow; the truth is that she is gone out of town,
but more 'tis difficult to know," Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote on March
8, 1766. "He has given her five pearl bracelets that cost £500--that's
not for nothing surely?"[133]
[132] "The Duke of Gloucester has professed a passion for the Dowager
Waldegrave. He is never from her elbow. This flatters Harry Walpole not
a little, though he pretends to dislike it."--Gilly Williams to George
Selwyn, December, 1764.
[133] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
[Illustration: MARIA, DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER
_To face p. 104, Vol. II_]
Perturbed by the scandal that was being circulated, Lady Waldegrave
consulted her uncle, who advised her not to see the Duke again,
whereupon she wrote to the latter a touching letter, in which she stated
that while she was too inconsiderable a person to aspire to his hand,
she was of too much consequence to become his mistress, and that
therefore the intercourse between them must cease. After the lapse of a
fortnight the intimacy was renewed, and Walpole, who knew his niece's
character, felt confident that a marriage took place. This, indeed, was
the case, for the Duke and Lady Waldegrave were secretly married on
September 6, 1766, although it was not publicly announced until June,
1772, and not even Sir Edward Walpole was informed until May 19.
"My dear and ever honoured sir," the Duchess wrote to her father on May
19, 1772, "you cannot easily imagine how much every past affliction has
been increased to me by my not being at liberty to make you quite easy.
The duty to a husband being superior to that we owe a father, I hope
will plead my pardon, and that instead of blaming my past reserve, you
will think it commendable. When the Duke of Gloucester married me (which
was in September, 1766), I promised him upon no consideration in the
world to own it, _even to you_, without his permission, which I never
had till yesterday, when he arrived here in much better health and
looks, better than ever I saw him, yet, as you may suppose much hurt at
all that passed in his absence; so much so that I had the greatest
difficulty to prevail on him to let things as much as possible remain as
they are. To secure my character, without injuring his, is the utmost of
my wishes, and I daresay that you and all my relations will agree with
me that I shall be much happier to be called Lady Waldegrave and
respected as Duchess of Gloucester than to feel myself the cause of his
leading such a life as his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, does, in
order to be called your royal highness. I am prepared for the sort of
abuse the newspapers will be full of. Very few people will believe that
a woman will refuse to be called princess if it is in her power. _To
have the power is my pride_, and not using it in some measure pays the
debt I owe the Duke for the honour he has done me. All that I wish of my
relations is that they will show the world that they are satisfied with
my conduct, yet _seem_ to disguise the reason. If ever I am unfortunate
enough to be called the Duchess of Gloucester, there is an end of
_almost_ all the comforts which I now enjoy, which, if things go on as
they are now, are _many_." It was this letter that drew from Horace
Walpole the most sincere commendation, perhaps, that he ever bestowed:
"I have always thought that feeling bestows the most sublime eloquence,
and that women write better letters than men. I, a writer in some
esteem, and all my life a letter-writer, never penned anything like this
letter of my niece. How mean did my prudence appear, compared with hers,
which was void of all personal considerations but her honour."
While the Duke of Gloucester was engaged in the courtship and marriage
of Lady Waldegrave, the Duke of Cumberland was spending the years in
riotous living. Scandals clustered thick around his name, and his
pursuit and conquest of Henrietta, Lady Grosvenor, resulted in an action
by her husband for _crim. con._, in which he was awarded £10,000
damages. The Duke, unable to pay this sum which with law-costs amounted
to £13,000, was obliged to seek aid from his brother, the King, who was
horrified at least as much by the attack upon his purse as at the affair
itself. He had, however, no choice but to find means to settle the
claim.
RICHMOND LODGE, _November 5, 1770_.
LORD NORTH,--A subject of a most private and delicate kind obliges
me to lose no time in acquainting you that my two brothers have
this day applied to me on the difficulty that the folly of the
younger has drawn him into; the affair is too public for you to
doubt but that it regards the lawsuit; the time will expire this
day seven-night, when he must pay the damages and the other
expenses attending it. He has taken no one step to raise the money,
and now has applied to me as the only means by which he can obtain
it, promising to repay it in a year and a half; I therefore
promised to write to you, though I saw great difficulty in you
finding so large a sum as thirteen thousand pounds in so short a
time; but their pointing out to me that the prosecutor would
certainly force the House, which would at this licentious time
occasion disagreeable reflections on the rest of his family as well
as on him. I shall speak more fully to you on this subject on
Wednesday, but the time is so short that I did not choose to delay
opening this affair till then; besides, I am not fond of taking
persons on delicate affairs unprepared; whatever can be done ought
to be done; and I ought as little as possible to appear in so very
improper a business.
GEORGE R.
[Illustration: _From an engraving by V. Green_
ANNE, DUCHESS OF CUMBERLAND
_To face p. 109, Vol. II_]
"I cannot enough express how much I feel at being in the least concerned
in an affair that my way of thinking has ever taught me to behold as
highly improper; but I flatter myself the truths I have thought it
incumbent to utter may be of some use in his future conduct," George III
had written after the Grosvenor episode became known to him; but he
placed too much reliance upon his powers of persuasion, for, the Duke's
connexion with Lady Grosvenor not enduring, he was soon engaged in other
intrigues,[134] the most notable and enduring of which was that with
Lady Anne Horton,[135] a woman of great beauty. "This lady, like every
member of her family, by no means wanted talents; but they were more
specious than solid--better calculated for show than for use, for
captivating admiration than for exciting esteem," Wraxall has written.
"Her personal charms, allowance being made for the injury they had
sustained from time--for in 1786 she was no longer young--fully
justified the Duke's passion. No woman of her time performed the honours
of her drawing-room with more affability, ease, and dignity." Horace
Walpole, too, has left a description of her charms. "There was something
so bewitching in her languishing eyes, which she could animate to
enchantment if she pleased, and her coquetry was so active, so varied,
and yet so habitual, that it was difficult not to see through it, and
yet as difficult to resist it. She danced divinely, and had a great deal
of wit, but of the satiric kind; and as she had haughtiness before her
rise, no wonder she claimed all the observances due to her rank, after
she became Duchess of Cumberland."[136]
[134] For years there was a rumour that the Duke of Cumberland had
married Olive Wilmot in 1767, and Miss Wilmot's daughter (afterwards
Mrs. Serres) called herself Princess Olive of Cumberland. An attempt to
prove the authenticity of the alleged marriage was brought before the
courts in 1866 by Mrs. Ryves, a daughter of "Princess Olive," but the
documents shown in support of the claim were proved to be spurious, and
it was dismissed. However, according to Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the Duke
of Kent thought there was "something" in Mrs. Serres's story, "and tried
to get some attention paid to her claims. Not having any money of his
own, he was said to have asked Robert Owen to make her some advances,
whilst he guaranteed." (_The Family of George III._) A probable solution
is that Olive Wilmot was the Duke's mistress.
[135] Lady Anne Luttrell, daughter of Simon, Earl of Carhampton, and
wife of Christopher Horton, of Catton Hall, Derby.
An amusing story is told _à propos_ of Lord Carhampton and the Prince
Regent. The Earl was seriously ill in 1812, and the rumour came to
Carlton House that he was dead, whereupon the Prince, without waiting to
authenticate the news, immediately gave away the colonelcy of the
regiment of carabineers which Lord Carhampton held. The report reached
the sick man, who instantly sent a friend to Pall Mall to tell his Royal
Highness that he hoped to recover, and therefore begged him to dispose
of any other regiment in the service except the carabineers. His Royal
Highness might rest assured, the Earl added, that he would give special
directions to his attendants not to lose a moment, after it was
ascertained that he was _really dead_, in conveying the news to Carlton
House.
[136] _Memoirs of George III._
The Duke of Cumberland did not attempt to conceal his marriage, and
according to some accounts, he informed the King in a curt note from
abroad during his honeymoon, though another, and more probable, version
declares that he went to the King, and walking with him in the garden
gave him a letter. "The King took it, saying he supposed he need not
read it now. 'Yes, sir,' said the Duke, 'you must read it directly.' On
doing so his Majesty broke out into the most violent language,
addressing his brother as 'You fool! You blockhead!' and declaring that
'this woman could be nothing and never should be anything to him.' He
then told the Duke to go abroad. This led to an open breach."[137]
[137] Percy Fitzgerald: _The Family of George III_.
The King was so angry that he determined forthwith to put a stop to
these clandestine marriages, and in February, 1772, sent a message to
Parliament, introducing the Royal Marriage Act, the main object of which
was to prohibit the marriage of any descendant of George II, unless a
foreigner, marrying without the consent of the sovereign. "I am much
pleased with the draft of the message, and with that of the Bill for
preventing marriages in the royal family without the previous consent of
the Crown, except the issue of princesses that have or may be married
into foreign families," George wrote to Lord North on February 4, 1772;
but just about this time came terrible news from Denmark about the
English princess who had married the king of that country.
"The most hardened men of the world confessed to being shocked when,
with such news barely three weeks old, the wretched Caroline's brother
invited his Parliament to consider a scheme of legislation, under which
British princesses might have to choose between a lifetime of celibacy,
and an ill-assorted union like that which just then was dissolving
amidst a scene of blood and misery such as could be paralleled only in
the imagination of the dramatist."[138] Though the Bill was introduced
by the express direction of the King, not one of the ministers wished to
identify himself with it. "One thing remarkable is that the King has
not a servant in the line of business in either House, except the Chief
Justice of the King's Bench [Mansfield] can be called so, who will own
the Bill, or who has refrained from every public insinuation against it,
as much as can come from those who vote for it, from considerations
declared to be of another nature,"[139] wrote the Earl of Shelburne on
March 15, 1772, to Chatham, who pronounced the measure "newfangled and
impudent." Still the Royal Marriage Act passed the Lords without serious
opposition, and it was brought to the Commons on March 4. There it had
to contend against a strong feeling.
[138] Trevelyan: _Early Life of Charles James Fox_.
[139] _Chatham Correspondence._
"I think it is the wickedest Act in the Statute Book. It was brought
forward to gratify the late Queen's pride, to protect her from the
mortification of having the Countess Dowager of Waldegrave and Mrs.
Horton raised to the rank of her sisters-in-law," Nicholls said. "It was
well said of some persons, while this Bill was depending in Parliament,
that the title of the Bill should be 'An Act to encourage Fornications
and Adultery in the descendants of George II.'"[140]
[140] _Recollections and Reflections._
The original bill stipulated that the sovereign's consent must be
obtained whatever the age of the prince or princess, but in the Lower
House this clause was altered so as to make the consent of the sovereign
necessary until the royal personage desirous to marry should have
reached the age of twenty-six, after which the union might take place
unless objected to by Parliament, to which one year's notice of the
proposed alliance must be given. Even with this modification, there was
much opposition, but the King was resolved that the bill should become
law. "I do expect every nerve to be strained to carry the bill through
both Houses with a becoming firmness, for it is not a question that
immediately relates to administration, but personally to myself, and
therefore I have a right to expect a hearty support from every one in my
service, and shall remember defaulters,"[141] George wrote to Lord
North; but in spite of this expression of opinion, while the second
reading passed by 268 to 140, the figures on the third reading showed
only a majority of eighteen, the exact number of votes that had
negatived an amendment to limit the operation of the bill to the reign
of George III and three years longer. Burke denounced the measure, and
Fox resigned his office so as to be free to oppose it; and their
attitude was shared by the public at large.
[141] _Correspondence between George III and Lord North._
"Should wedded beauty Glo'ster's choice approve,
And honour kindle at the call of Love,
Oh! let forgiveness ne'er abuse the throne,
Unmov'd, and sullen, hear a brother groan!
_Gomorrah's_ crime alone shall pardon find,
Or _Blood's_ offence, for _blood_.
Should a mad brother in the June of life
Debauch a virgin or seduce a wife,
Risk his good name on _Whistle-jacket's_ speed,
Or run the race of Folly, and succeed;
That brother to the royal _bosom take_,
And love the offender for;
But should that brother wisdom's voice obey,
And Hymen's torch to virtue light the way;
That brother from the royal bosom thrust,
Disgrace his honest offspring, and be _just_
Thus shall the genuine German line succeed,
And the same lead run sterling through the breed."[142]
[142] "Peregrine the Elder": _An Heroic Epistle to an Unfortunate
Monarch_. 1778.
Other squibs will be found in the present writer's _The First Gentleman
of Europe_, where the text of the Royal Marriage Act is given, _à
propos_ of the union of the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Fitzherbert.
As soon as an intimation of the Royal Marriage Act reached the Duke of
Gloucester, he informed the King of his marriage, and further acquainted
him with an impending interesting event at which he desired the great
officers of state should attend. The news was a great blow to George,
who at first took no notice of his brother's communication; but upon
receipt of a second letter deigned to state that after the birth of a
child he would send and have "the marriage, as well as the birth
enquired into, in order that both may be authenticated." This was most
unsatisfactory to the Duke and his wife, and the former, to the general
astonishment, rose to the occasion, and sent a dignified reply, in which
he demanded an immediate inquiry, otherwise he would state his case in
person in the House of Lords. The threat produced the desired result,
inquiries were made, and as the marriage was informal, though not
actually illegal, it was only after the Duke's avowed intention to go
through the ceremony again that the King accepted the marriage. His
consent was given on May 27, and two days later a child was born.[143]
[143] William Frederick succeeded his father as Duke of Gloucester,
1805; married Princess Mary, fourth daughter of George III, 1816.
Though the King could not refuse to recognize the marriage of his
brothers, he could and did decline to receive the parties to them, and
for some years the two Dukes and their wives were in disgrace. The Duke
and Duchess of Gloucester bore their exile with equanimity, for the Duke
was passionately fond of travelling and perhaps never so happy as when
roaming over the continent.
He was the King's favourite brother,[144] and was eventually received
into favour, when the King could not well refrain from pardoning the
other transgressor. "You have heard, I suppose, of the conduct of the
two duchesses about their husbands' reconciliation with the King," Lady
Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien, in the summer of 1780. "The
Duchess of Cumberland sent her husband to Court, and said that she would
be no hindrance to his going, 'that her house was her palace, and her
husband her guard, and she wanted no others.' _Voyez un peu comme elle
s'y prend bien pour arriver à sa fin._ The Duke of Gloucester goes only
in private, but yet the King is so fond of him, he seems to approve of
everything he does, so that it's hard to tell who is in the right, but I
would bet my money on the head of a Luttrell being in the right road to
preferment, and it's no bad sign of it when a Luttrell adopts _les beaux
sentiments_ and is scrupulous of family duties among relations, for it
is not in that line they have hitherto shone."
[144] "In their boyhood each had manifested that serious, reserved and
pious disposition which happily preserved them from plunging into those
youthful irregularities which subsequently disgraced the careers of
their brothers, the Dukes of York and Cumberland. Each had suffered from
the effects of a faulty education; each, on reaching manhood, had
happily had the sagacity to appreciate the grievous disadvantage which
it imposed upon them, and each, by diligent study, had endeavoured to
make up for the faults and deficiencies of the past."--Jesse: _Memoirs
of George III_.
The Duke of Gloucester was no more able than his brothers to be faithful
to one woman, and he soon devoted himself to Lady Almeria Carpenter,
when his wife, a high-spirited woman, for whom he had fought so well,
demanded, and in 1787 obtained, an informal separation. The Duke was,
indeed, scarcely worth securing except for his title, for he was almost
entirely destitute of intelligence, as two anecdotes related by Walpole
prove. On one occasion he came into a room where his wife was sitting to
Reynolds, of whom he took no notice until the Duchess whispered to him
to address the painter. "So," said he, willing to be agreeable, "so you
always begin with the head, do you?" This was only to be equalled by his
remark to Gibbon: "What, scribble, scribble, scribble?" Feeble in
health, the Duke's life was frequently despaired of, but he survived
until 1803. "We are in hourly expectation of the news of the poor Duke
of Gloucester's death," the Queen wrote to Lady Harcourt on August 29,
1803. "His sufferings must have been dreadfully painful; but his good
temper and cheerfulness never left him. I understand that he was not
quite open with his physician, and that some complaint he kept a secret
for three days, to which the medicines which they administered were
fatal. How unfortunate to deceive oneself, and much more when one wishes
to deceive others. This the King is not to know; but the physicians
stand justified to the world.... The poor Duke has left a will, and
desires to be buried at Windsor; which is granted. He left the Duchess
sole executrix; but with a proviso to pay his debts, which the world
says are very few."
The reconciliation of the Duke of Cumberland with the King was hollow
indeed, for these brothers had nothing in common, and the monarch hated
his sister-in-law. "The King held her [the Duchess] in great alienation,
because he believed she lent herself to facilitate or to gratify the
Prince of Wales's inclinations on some points beyond the limits of
propriety--Carlton House and Cumberland House communicating behind by
the gardens."[145] The reasons for George III's dislike were
well-founded, and, in addition, the Duke committed the unpardonable sin
in allying himself with the Opposition, and was further the prime factor
in inducing his nephew, the Prince of Wales, to set himself against the
Court. During the American troubles in 1775, ministerial Earl told the
Duke that his Majesty hoped his brother would support the measures of
the Government. "God forbid," said his Royal Highness, "that a prince
of the House of Hanover should violate those rights in America, which
they were raised to the throne of England for asserting," and he voted
in favour of Chatham's plan of conciliation. That fine speech stands
alone in the records of his libertine career.
[145] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
The King's eldest sister, Princess Augusta, was, according to Horace
Walpole, "not handsome, but tall enough and not ill-made, with the
German whiteness of hair and complexion, so remarkable in the royal
family, and with their precipitate yet thick Westphalian accent."[146]
At an early age she interested herself in politics, and soon showed a
desire to meddle in matters of state, which desire was particularly
annoying to her mother, for, unlike the Princess Dowager, she was
attached to Pitt and with the Duke of York "inveighed openly and boldly
against the policy of the Court." Such a firebrand was an active danger
in the royal family, and it was feared lest she might infect her
brothers and sisters and even the young Queen with her obnoxious
opinions. It was, therefore, thought advisable to remove her from
England, and this was achieved by marrying her in 1764 to Charles
William Ferdinand, Hereditary-Prince of Brunswick Wolfenbüttel.
[146] _Memoirs of George III._
[Illustration: _From a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds_
AUGUSTA, DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK]
[Illustration: _Portrait by Cotes_
CAROLINA MATILDA, QUEEN OF DENMARK
_To face p. 120, Vol. II_]
The bridegroom of the Princess Royal was treated by the Court with great
coldness, for it was known that he had been discussing English politics
with more freedom than discretion: all the ceremonials not absolutely
essential were omitted, the servants were not given the customary new
liveries for the marriage, and though Charles was perforce lodged at
Somerset House, no sentinel was placed at the door of his apartment.
Indeed had he been an uninvited guest his reception could not have been
more marked by stinging slights. The Prince, a high-spirited, not
overwise young man of nine-and-twenty, was very angry at the treatment
accorded him by the family of his bride, and since the Court ignored him
so far as possible, he accepted the attentions of the leaders of the
Opposition, dined with the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Newcastle,
and visited Pitt at Hayes.
Very different was the conduct of the public, which was delighted to
welcome the gallant young soldier, who had distinguished himself in war
under Frederick the Great, and cheered him to the echo whenever he
appeared in public. One day, he kissed his hand to a soldier of Elliot's
Light Horse, who was at once surrounded by a crowd, and asked if he knew
the Prince. "Yes," said the man, "he once led me into a scrape, which
nobody but himself could have brought me out of again." "You may guess,"
wrote Walpole, "how much this added to the Prince's popularity, which
was at high-water mark before." The Prince had arrived in England on
January 12, and was married on the 16th. Two days later the whole royal
family went to Covent Garden Theatre, and the public took this occasion
to show their opinion of the manner in which the visitor had been
received. The King and Queen took their seats in a profound silence, and
deafening cheers greeted the appearance of the bridal pair. "The shouts,
claps, and huzzas were immoderate," Walpole informed Sir Horace Mann.
"He sat behind his Princess and her brothers. The galleries called him
to come forward. In the middle of the play he went to be elected a
member of the Royal Society, and returned to the theatre when the
applause was renewed."
The subsequent life of the Prince and Princess of Brunswick was
conventional--conventional, that is, according to the standard of
royalty in those days. "The Duchess of Brunswick is brought to bed of a
brat, and they say she has not been taken care of, and that the Prince
is not good to her," Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on
December 16, 1764; "but I don't believe a word of it." Certainly the
Duke was not faithful to his wife, and had many intrigues, the most
enduring of which was with Madame de Herzfeldt. "There were some unlucky
things in our Court, which made my position difficult," subsequently
said Princess Charlotte of Brunswick, who married the Prince of Wales.
"My father was most entirely attached to a lady for thirty years who, in
fact, was his mistress. She was the beautifullest creature and the
cleverest; but though my father continued to pay my poor mother all
possible respect, my poor mother could not suffer this attachment. The
consequence was that I did not know what to do between them: when I was
civil to the one I was scolded by the other; and I was very tired of
being shuttlecock between them."
After the death of the Duke at the battle of Jena, his principality fell
into the hands of the French, and the Duchess fled to England, where,
owing to the difference between her daughter and the Prince of Wales,
she lived in semi-retirement until her death on March 23, 1813.
Far more tragic was the fate of the Princess Caroline Amelia, who was
married at the age of fifteen to Christian VII, King of Denmark. "The
poor Queen of Denmark is gone out alone into the wide world; not a
creature she knows to attend her any further than Altona," Miss Talbot
wrote to Mrs. Carter on October 4, 1766. "It is worse than dying; for
die she must to all she has ever seen or known; but then it is only
dying out of one bad world into another just like it, and where she is
to have cares and fears, and dangers and sorrows, that will all yet be
new to her.... They have just been telling me how bitterly she cried in
the coach, as far as anybody saw her." The girl's feelings at this time
proved only too truly prophetic of the rest of her brief life. Her
husband was an abandoned _roué_, and, it was said, ill-treated her.
After two years, King Christian, without his wife, came to pay a
prolonged visit to England, where he was received by George III with
great coldness, although, of course, the necessary ceremonials could not
be avoided. "As to-morrow is the day you receive foreign ministers, you
will acquaint M. de Dieden that I desire he will assure the King, his
master, that I am desirous of making his stay in this country as
agreeable as possible," George wrote to Lord Weymouth on June 8, 1768.
"That I therefore wish to be thoroughly apprised of the mode in which he
chooses to be treated, that I may exactly conform to it. This will throw
whatever may displease the King of Denmark, during his stay there, on
his shoulders, and consequently free me from that _désagrément_; but
you know very well the whole of it is very disagreeable to me."
After Christian's return the relations between him and his Queen were
strained to the uttermost. He was now, as a consequence of his
dissipations, a physical wreck; and his wife, taking a leaf from his
book, committed all sorts of rash and foolish actions. She carried on an
intrigue with Stuensee, the Prime Minister, and made no attempt whatever
to hide their intimacy. Owing to the intervention of the Queen Dowager,
who desired to secure the throne for her younger son Frederick, it was
determined to end the scandal. Stuensee was arrested and executed in
1772, and the Queen was sent to Cronenborg, where she was kept in strict
confinement. It was suspected that she would meet the same fate as her
lover, but this was averted by the action of the British Government, who
sent a fleet into the Baltic, when the Queen was released. She went to
Stade in Hanover, and afterwards to Zell, where she died on May 10,
1775. Whether her intrigue with the minister was innocent or guilty need
not now be argued. "I am going to appear before God," the unhappy woman
said on her deathbed. "I now protest I am innocent of the guilt imputed
to me, and that I was never unfaithful to my husband."
CHAPTER XVIII
ENGLAND AND AMERICA. II: THE KING'S WAR
In America, the repeal of the Stamp Act had been regarded as a great
victory: ships displayed their colours, houses were illuminated,
joybells were set ringing. The South Carolina Assembly voted a sum of
money for the purchase of a marble statue of William Pitt; and at
Philadelphia the principal inhabitants gave a great ball to the English
officials, at the conclusion of which the hosts passed an informal
resolution: "that to demonstrate our zeal to Great Britain, and our
gratitude for the repeal of the Stamp Act, each of us will, on June 4
next, on the birthday of our most gracious sovereign George III, dress
ourselves in a new suit of the manufactures of England, and give what
homespun we have to the poor." Adams, who certainly was in a position to
speak with authority, declared that, "The repeal of the Stamp Act has
hushed into silence almost every popular clamour, and composed every
wave of popular disorder into a smooth and peaceful calm"; and Lord
Chatham in a speech some years later, referring to this time, said, "The
Americans had almost forgot, in their excess of gratitude for the
repeal of the Stamp Act, any interest but that of the mother-country;
there seemed an emulation among the different provinces who should be
most dutiful and forward in their expression of loyalty."[147]
[147] Thackeray: _Life of Chatham_.
This view of the state of affairs in the American colonies was, however,
far too deeply tinged with optimism, for, after the first outburst of
enthusiasm, the joy of the inhabitants diminished as they reflected upon
the malign possibilities inevitably suggested by the Declaratory Act.
The well informed were aware that this was intended by the English
ministers only as a salve to the King and Parliament; but to the
majority it was a menace, and even those who understood the reason for
the measure could not feel sure it would never be invoked. So it
happened that "there were not wanting many, who, by pamphlets and
newspaper publication, prevented the return of cordial affection, and
cautioned the colonies against a too implicit reliance on the moderation
of the mother country."[148]
[148] Adolphus: _History of England_.
This feeling of insecurity might by judicious handling have been
removed, but it was fanned into irritation by that clause in the Mutiny
Act which compelled the colonials to furnish supplies for the English
troops. "An Act of Parliament commanding to do a certain thing, if it
has any validity," said Dickinson, "is a tax upon us for the expense
that accrues in complying with it."[149] Thus it came to pass that while
England was still congratulating itself upon the fortunate results of
the repeal of the Stamp Act, New York was refusing to provision or to
house the British troops, and its merchants were petitioning against
this attempted imposition.
[149] _The Farmer's Letters._
Wisdom and tact were required in the English ministers who, as usual
when dealing with America, were found wanting in those qualities; and,
indeed, there was during the next years ample ground for Nicholls's
scathing indictment of the policy of the mother-country. "From the
formation of Lord Chatham's cabinet in 1766 to the ultimate
determination in 1774, of forcing the Americans into rebellion, the
measures adopted seem to have been calculated to provoke and irritate
the Americans. Perhaps this was not the intention of those in power, but
it was the result of the different measures at different times adopted;
sometimes the Earl of Chatham's opinion prevailed, viz., that the
British Parliament had no right to tax the American colonies. At other
times the opinion of the interior cabinet prevailed, viz., that the
King was humiliated if the right of the British Parliament to tax
America was not asserted."[150]
[150] _Reflections, Personal and Political._
If the irritation of the colonists was only partially allayed by the
repeal of the Stamp Act, George III was suffering from what he regarded
as the humiliation inflicted by Lord Rockingham's conciliatory policy,
and no sooner had he dismissed that minister than he endeavoured to
persuade the new government to take steps to re-assert the royal
dignity. While Lord Chatham was at the head of affairs, George could do
nothing, but when the illness of this Prime Minister prevented his
participation in the management of public business, the King brought
pressure to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "The whole body
of courtiers drove him [Townshend] onwards," said Burke. "They always
talked as if the King stood in a sort of humiliated state until
something of the kind should be done [to neutralize the repeal]."[151]
Townshend was an ambitious man and eventually he yielded to these
representations, in spite of the known hostility of his absent leader to
such measures as were indicated. "I will not use so strong an expression
as to say that Townshend was treacherous to this administration," wrote
Nicholls, "but he certainly saw that the Earl of Chatham's greatness was
on the decline; and that he should most readily increase his own
importance by acquiescing in the wishes of the King. He therefore
brought forward measures tending to revive the question of the right of
the British Parliament to tax the American colonies; but his premature
death protects him from being considered as the author of the American
War."[152]
[151] _Speech on American Taxation_, 1774.
[152] _Recollections and Reflections._
Untaught by experience, George Grenville, on January 26, 1767, moved in
the House of Commons that America, like Ireland, should support an
establishment of its own, and in the course of the discussion which
followed, Townshend declared himself an advocate of the principle of the
Stamp Act. "I know the mode by which a revenue may be drawn from the
Americans without giving offence," he stated, to the astonishment and
dismay of the cabinet, who had not been taken into his confidence.
George Grenville at once took the opportunity to pin the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to his project; and his colleagues then had only the
alternative to demand Townshend's resignation or adopt his scheme. They
would gladly have had him removed, for, intoxicated by success and royal
flatterers, "his behaviour on the whole," as the Duke of Grafton wrote
to Chatham, "is such as no cabinet will, I am confident, ever submit
to."[153] Unfortunately Chatham was too ill to intervene, and so
Townshend prepared his Bill. "No one of the Ministry had authority to
advise the dismissal of Mr. Charles Townshend, and nothing less could
have stopped the measure," Grafton explained, "Lord Chatham's absence
being, in this instance as well as others, much to be lamented."[154]
[153] _Chatham Correspondence._
[154] _Ibid._
On May 13 Townshend introduced a Bill to impose taxes on glass, paper,
pasteboard, white lead, red lead, painters' colours, and tea imported
into the American colonies, the proceeds of which would, it was
estimated, amount to less than £40,000 a year, and would be devoted to
payment of the governors and judges in America. If taxation was
permissible without representation, then there was little to be said
against the measure. It inflicted no hardship, for, to take one article
as an example, even with the threepence a pound tax, the colonists were
still able to purchase tea cheaper than it could be obtained in England,
where the tax (returnable on exportation) was a shilling a pound.
Further, in regard to the whole measure, it was contended that there was
a very distinct difference between a tax on imports and an excise tax.
"An excise the Americans think you have no right to levy within their
country," Franklin said, when examined by the House of Commons. "But the
sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets the safety of navigation in
it, and keep it clear of pirates. You may have, therefore, a natural and
equitable right to some toll or duty and merchandise carried through
that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in
the ships to maintain the safety of that carriage."
Parliament had not profited by the lessons of the Stamp Act, and
ministers ignored the advice of the colonial Governors that now the
colonists had tasted the fruits of their power, it was even more
dangerous than before to attempt to impose taxation without
representation. The situation was further complicated by the fact that
the King was known to have instigated the measure. "The distance of the
colonies would make it impossible for them to take an active interest in
your affairs if they were as well affected to your government as they
once pretended to be to your person. They were ready enough to
distinguish between _you_ and your ministers. They complained of an act
of the legislature, but traced the origin of it no higher than to the
servants of the Crown; they pleased themselves with the hope that their
sovereign, if not favourable to their cause, at least was impartial. The
decisive, personal part you took against them has effectually banished
that first distinction from their minds. They consider you as united
with your servants against America."[155]
[155] _Letters of "Junius."_
More clear-sighted than the English was the Duc de Choiseul, who wrote
in August, 1867, to Durand, the French Minister in London: "Let England
but attempt to establish taxes in her colonies and those countries,
greater than England in extent, and perhaps becoming more
populous--having fisheries, forests, shipping, corn, iron and the
like--will easily and fearlessly separate themselves from the
mother-country."[156] The feeling of loyalty in the colonies was still
strong, however, and as De Kalb, the secret agent of De Choiseul, wrote
to his chief, "There is a hundred times more enthusiasm for the American
Revolution in any of our coffee houses of Paris, than in all the
thirteen provinces of America united."[157] None the less the subsequent
events vindicated the judgment of De Choiseul.
[156] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
[157] Grahame: _History of the United States_.
The immediate result of Townshend's Act falsified Franklin's opinion.
Instead of the measure being accepted in all good-will, the seizure of
John Hancock's sloop _Liberty_ for a breach of the revenue laws resulted
in a serious riot in Boston. It is true that the other provinces
contented themselves for the moment with indignation meetings; but it
became very obvious that everywhere there was a feeling of increased
hostility to the motherland. This was sedulously and successfully fanned
by De Kalb, who was busily engaged in the endeavour to foment rebellion
in the colonies; and it was not long before Massachusetts, as usual,
took the lead, and, on February 11, 1768, addressed a circular letter to
the other Assemblies denouncing the new laws as unconstitutional and
inviting them to take united measures for their repeal. Otis sounded the
note of revolt: "Let Britain rescind her measures, or her authority is
lost for ever"; and half the colonists banded themselves together as
"Sons of Liberty" and "Daughters of Liberty," and pledged themselves not
to use British imports. Petitions, worded with great moderation, were
presented to the King, but the American newspapers contained articles
couched in very different language, and colonial orators did not mince
their words. "We will submit to no tax, neither will we become slaves.
Before the King and Parliament shall impose upon us, or settle Crown
officers independent of the Colonial Legislature, we will take up arms
and shed the last drop of our blood."[158]
[158] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
England was not at first inclined to be conciliatory. Charles
Townshend's death in September, 1767, and the appointment of Lord North
as Chancellor of the Exchequer had necessitated various changes in the
ministry; and in December, in consequence of the increase of business in
connexion with the American colonies, a third Secretary of State with
the title of Secretary of State for America was appointed in the person
of Lord Hillsborough.[159] The latter, whom Horace Walpole has described
as "nothing more than a pompous composition of ignorance and want of
judgment," was a most unwise selection for the very difficult office. He
seems to have had no opinion of his own, and to have been undismayed by
the outbreaks, relying mainly upon the advice of Bernard, Governor of
Massachusetts, that a show of force would be sufficient to subdue the
malcontents.
[159] Wills Hill (1718-1793), succeeded as second Viscount Hillsborough
1742, created Irish Earl 1751, and Marquis of Downshire 1789.
"The affairs in North America tend more and more to confusion," Lord
Rockingham wrote on August 11, 1768; and about the same time Bernard,
stating that his position was one of "utter and humiliating impotence,"
asked for troops. Soldiers were sent, in spite of Franklin's warning
that "they would not find, but would easily create rebellion." The
troops arrived in November, and were kindly received by the colonists,
who made it clear to them that the widespread indignation was not
against them but against their masters. This show of force on a small
scale was without effect. "Of what avail will an army be in so vast a
country?" De Chatelet said to De Choiseul. "The Americans have made
these reflections, and they will not give way."[160]
[160] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
For a while, however, the English continued their blundering.
Hillsborough instructed Bernard to order the Massachusetts Assembly to
rescind its circular letter, and when the Assembly reaffirmed its
resolution by a still larger majority, it was dissolved. When Parliament
met in December, the Duke of Bedford moved a petition to the Crown to
apply to Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry VIII, by which offenders
outside the kingdom were liable to be brought to England for trial, on
the ground that owing to the state of public feeling in that province it
would be impossible to obtain a conviction in any action brought by the
Government. This extraordinary proposal actually passed through
Parliament, in spite of the opposition of Burke and Pownall, an
ex-governor of Massachusetts, for, as Burke said, "Repeal began to be in
as bad odour in the House of Commons as the Stamp Act had been the
session before."[161] There was so great an outcry, both in England and
America, against this measure that no attempt was made to enforce it;
indeed, it is probable that it was only intended to frighten the
colonists, for it was impossible to make the mother-country realize that
its American colonies were not a band of naughty children. As Horace
Walpole wrote to Conway: "Our conduct has been that of pert children. We
have thrown a pebble at a mastiff and are surprised it is not
frightened."
[161] _Speech on American Taxation, 1774._
America was not frightened, but its attitude was so threatening that the
Duke of Grafton, influenced by the complaint of London merchants that
between Christmas 1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America had
decreased by £700,000, moved at a Cabinet Council held on May 1, 1769,
for the Bill for the repeal of the import dues. At first it seemed as if
it would be carried, but at a subsequent discussion Lord North, who, in
the interval, had yielded to the King's prayers, proposed that the duty
on tea should be retained, not for its financial value, but as a sign
of the right of Parliament to impose taxation. As the question at issue
was the right to tax, not what to tax, North's amendment practically
neutralized the original proposal; but when Grafton divided the Cabinet
upon the question, he was left in a minority of one. Soon after he
resigned, and Lord North, reigning in his stead, introduced his measure
on March 6, 1770. In vain Pownall, who after his return from America in
1760 had published a book on "The Administration of the Colonies," in
which he laid especial stress upon the determination of the Americans
not to be taxed without their own consent, begged the new ministry to
reconsider its measure, assuring them that it would be entirely
ineffectual unless all the duties were repealed.
The time had gone by for partial concession, and on the very day before
Lord North brought in his Bill, a serious riot broke out at Boston, when
the soldiers fired and the first blood was shed. Yet nothing warned the
King, whose passion for prerogative it was impossible to quench, and he
now strengthened the anti-colonial side of the new Cabinet. "Rigby ...
who cursed and swore when the repeal of the Stamp Act was alluded to in
his presence, and Sandwich, who never spoke of the Americans except as
rebels and cowards, openly proclaimed that three battalions and
half-a-dozen frigates would soon bring New York and Massachusetts to
their senses. They became ministers on an express understanding that the
British Government, in its dealing with the Provincial Assemblies,
should henceforth employ undisguised coercion and insist upon
unconditional submission."[162]
[162] Trevelyan: _Early Life of Charles James Fox._
In August, 1772, Lord Hillsborough was replaced as Secretary of State
for America by the Earl of Dartmouth, who was known to be anxious for
conciliation; but the colonies found fresh cause of offence in a measure
that provided for the payment of the Massachusetts judges by the Crown
instead of the colonies, "a change which was designed to render the
judges independent of popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to
make him subservient to the Crown, for they held office during the
King's pleasure."
Meantime delegates from the various Assemblies met in congress, and
presented to the King a petition, at once firm and temperate, assuring
him of their desire to restore amicable relations with the
mother-country. "As your Majesty enjoys the signal distinction of
reigning over freemen, the language of freedom cannot be displeasing. We
ask for peace, liberty, and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in our favour.
In the magnanimity and justice of your Majesty and Parliament, we
confide for a redress of our grievances, trusting that when the causes
of our apprehensions are removed, our future conduct will prove us not
unworthy of the regard we have been accustomed, in our happier days, to
enjoy. We implore, therefore, your Majesty, as the loving father of all
your people, connected by the same bonds of law, loyalty, faith and
blood, not to suffer the transcendent relation, formed by these ties, to
be further violated in uncertain expectation of effects which, if
attained, never can compensate for the calamities through which they
must be gained. So may your Majesty enjoy every temporal felicity,
through a long and glorious reign, and your descendants inherit your
prosperity and dominions, till time shall be no more." After passing
this Address, Congress, which had sat in defiance of the Government,
dissolved, but not before it had agreed to a resolution that if the
differences at issue were not previously settled, another Congress
should meet on May 10, 1775. The petition was, under the circumstances,
so reasonable that on November 10 the Duke of Richmond moved in the
House of Lords that the petition of the American Congress to the King
afforded _ground_ of conciliation. The King, however, would only regard
the Address as an impertinence, and his reply was deliberately void of
any conciliatory phrase. "It is with the utmost astonishment that I find
any of my subjects capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition
which unhappily exists in some of my colonies in North America. Having
entire confidence in the wisdom of my Parliament, the great council of
the nation, I will steadily pursue those measures which they have
recommended, for the support of the constitutional rights of Great
Britain and the protection of the commercial interests of my kingdom."
The irritation of the American colonists broke out on December 16, 1773,
when the ships laden with tea arrived at the port of Boston. These were
boarded by a small army of responsible citizens disguised as Mohawk
Indians in full war paint, with tomahawks and scalping knives, too
numerous to be opposed, who flung the cargoes into the sea. The news of
"the Boston Tea-Party," as the incident was subsequently known, only
established George III in his belief that of all weapons firmness only
would be effectual; and accordingly he sanctioned and, indeed, welcomed
the Boston Port Bill, which ordered the closing of the port of Boston
and altered the charter of the province of Massachusetts. It was clear
that if this Act could be enforced Boston would be punished for its sins
by nothing less than ruin, and ministers believed that the dispersal of
the trade of that flourishing town among its commercial competitors
would result in internal quarrels. However, instead of the hoped for
disunion, the colonies banded themselves together yet more closely, and
when Hutchinson was recalled and General Gage sent out as Governor of
Massachusetts and Commander-in-Chief, the latter found himself
confronted with the colonies on the very border-line of rebellion.
"Very little that is satisfactory has transpired of America. On Monday
Lord North moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the Customs and
Courts of Justice from Boston to New Salem--a step so detrimental to the
former town, as must soon reduce it to your own terms; and yet of so
mild an appearance that it was agreed to without a division and almost
without a debate," Gibbon wrote on March 16, 1774. The truth is, outside
a small body of active politicians, Englishmen had not yet realized that
the American question had become so acute, that close at hand was the
end of peaceful negotiations. Even when it seemed probable that
hostilities must ensue, the landed gentry, the backbone of the House of
Commons, were in favour of thrashing their impenitent brethren across
the sea, and a little later, according to Burke, "The merchants began to
snuff the cadaverous _haut goût_ of lucrative war; the freighting
business never was so lively, on account of the prodigious taking up for
transport service: great orders for provisions of all kinds, new
clothing for the troops, puts life into the woollen manufactures."[163]
[163] "I am grieved to observe that the landed interest is almost
altogether anti-American, though the common people hold the war in
abhorrence, and the merchants and tradesmen, for obvious reasons, are
likewise against it."--Lord Camden to Lord Chatham, February, 1775.
Even the general body of the public was deluded, by the specious
arguments of the ministers, into the support of the appeal to arms. "I
recollect," Nicholls has recorded, "in one debate, Lord North stated
that the inhabitants of Great Britain, considered collectively, paid one
man with another twenty-five shillings a year in taxes; while the
inhabitants of our American colonies, considered collectively, paid each
only sixpence a year in taxes; he added, 'Is this equitable?' The
country gentlemen were weak enough to believe that, by persevering in
the contest, their taxes would be diminished."[164]
[164] _Recollections and Reflections._
The Boston Port Act was the last straw. The Americans realized that they
must either submit unconditionally to the home government or take arms
in defence of their liberties. They did not long hesitate. In September
the inter-provincial Congress approved the opposition of the inhabitants
of Massachusetts Bay to the execution of the late Acts of Parliament,
and stated that if the same should be attempted to be carried into
execution by force, in such cases all Americans ought to support them in
their opposition. "I am not sorry that the line of conduct seems now
chalked out," wrote the King on hearing the news. "The New England
government are in a state of rebellion. Blows must decide whether they
are to be subject to this country or independent."[165]
[165] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
The appeal to the God of Battles was not allowed without protest, and in
January, 1775, Chatham, moving for the recall of the troops in Boston,
made an impassioned speech. "For solidity of reasoning, and wisdom of
conclusion under such a complication of difficult circumstances, no
nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General Congress at
Philadelphia. All attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to
establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation must be vain,
must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to retract. Let us retract
while we can, not when we must." In vain London and other cities
petitioned against extreme measures, in vain Lord Effingham and
Chatham's eldest son resigned their commissions in the Army lest they
should have to serve against the Americans, in vain Grafton resigned the
Privy Seal. Lord Dartmouth took the Duke's place; Lord George Germaine,
a violent opponent of the colonies, became Secretary of State for
America; and Howe took over from Gage the command of the British troops
in the colonies; while those who opposed the war were looked upon as
traitors by the Court. "The war was considered as the war of the King
personally. Those who supported it were called the King's friends; while
those who wished the country to pause, and reconsider the propriety of
persevering in the contest, were branded as disloyal."[166]
[166] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections._
The first blood was shed at Lexington on the morning of April 19, 1775,
when General Gage's troops engaged with a body of the colonial militia.
At that time no doubt was felt at home that the rebels would be promptly
defeated, and still society at large did not take the American question
very seriously. Even Selwyn referred to it as "that little dispute."
"You pant after news from America, there are none _pour le moment_," he
wrote to Lord Carlisle on October 11, 1775. "But you may depend upon it,
if that little dispute interests you, I will let you know, _quand le
monde sera rassemble, tout ce que j'apprens, et de bon lieu_. Charles
[James Fox] assures us that nothing is so easy as to put an end to all
this, but then there must be a change of ministry, _quelconque_, no
matter what, as a preliminary assurance to the insurgents."[167] Two
months later Selwyn was still optimistic. "Our last news from America
are certainly not good, but it does not alter my expectations of what
will be the issue of the next campaign." The delay in inflicting a
serious defeat upon the colonists filled the latter with hope of
ultimate success. "Britain," said Franklin jubilantly, "at expense of
three millions, had killed a hundred and fifty Yankees this campaign,
which is £20,000 a head; and at Bunker's Hill she gained a mile of
ground, part of which she lost again by our taking post on Ploughed
Hill. During the same time sixty thousand children have been born in
America: from these data may easily be calculated the time and expense
necessary to kill us all and conquer our territory."
[167] _George Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
Lexington and Bunker's Hill only served to irritate the King, who could
not see to what these encounters would lead, and he was the more
shocked, being in hourly expectation of the surrender of the rebels, to
receive despatches from Sir William Howe, containing an account of the
action on Long Island. "Since the future consequences of the American
rebellion, if we may judge from this fatal event," he said to Lord
George Germaine, after glancing at the lists of killed and wounded at
Long Island, "are likely to be still more bloody and tragical, may my
deluded subjects on the other side of the Atlantic behold their
impending destruction with half the horror that I feel on the occasion;
then I think I shall soon hear of their throwing off the yoke of
republicanism and, like loyal subjects, returning to that duty they owe
to an indulgent sovereign." Doubtless he still cherished the hope that
colonists would come to heel, but even his optimism must have been
shattered by the publication of the Declaration of Independence on July
4, 1775.
The war proceeded with varying fortunes, and the capture of New York by
Howe encouraged the mother-country. Burgoyne's success at Philadelphia
in June, 1777, delighted the King, who is said to have rushed into the
Queen's room as soon as he heard of it, crying, "I have beat them! beat
all the Americans!" But his pleasure was soon dashed by the news that on
October 16, Burgoyne and his army capitulated at Saratoga, which,
however, after the first shock, he pronounced "very serious, but not
without remedy." After these distressing tidings became known in
England, a friend of Lord North said to him, "My Lord, you must now see
that the whole population of America is hostile to your designs." Lord
North replied, "I see that as clearly as you do; and the King shall
either consent to allow me to assure the House of Commons that some
means shall be found to put an end to the war, or I will not continue to
be his minister."[168] The King, however, was not to be moved from his
purpose, and his appeal to North not to desert him in the hour of his
trouble could not be disregarded by his faithful minister.
[168] Nicholls: _Reflections Personal and Political_.
The situation was, indeed, distressing. "What a wretched piece of work
do we seem to be making of it in America!" Gibbon wrote on April 13,
1777. "The greatest force which any European power ever ventured to
transport into that continent is not strong enough ever to attack the
enemy: the naval strength of Great Britain is not sufficient to prevent
the Americans (they have almost lost the appellation of rebels) from
receiving every assistance that they wanted; and in the meantime you are
obliged to call out the militia to defend your own coast against their
privateers. You possibly may expect from me some account of the designs
and policy of the French Court. I shall only say that I am not under any
immediate apprehension of a war with France. It is much more pleasant as
well as profitable to view in safety the raging of the tempest,
occasionally to pick up some pieces of wreck, and to improve their
trade, their agriculture and their finances while the two countries are
'_lento collisa duella_.' Far from taking any step to put an end to this
astonishing dispute, I should not be surprised if next summer they were
to lend their cordial assistance to England as the weaker party."[169]
[169] Walpole: _Last Journals_.
It is beyond the scope of this work to trace the progress of the war,
and it is for the military historian to criticise its conduct; but it
was patent that the purchase of Hessian troops was a great diplomatic
blunder. To invoke the aid of hired mercenaries was to make the breach
irrevocable, as well as to set against the country employing them the
sympathy of other nations. Frederick the Great said he "should make all
the Hessian troops, marching through his dominions to America, pay the
usual cattle tax, because though human beings they had been sold as
beasts." The case has been well put by Lord Mahon. "If any men were
needed, was there any lack of them in England?" he asked, "was it wise
to inform foreign states that we deemed ourselves thus dependent on
foreign aid. Was it wise to hold forth to America the first example of
obtaining assistance from abroad? Above all, if conciliation was the
object full as much as conquest, how signal the imprudence thus in the
midst of a civil strife, to thrust forward aliens to both parties, in
blood, in language, and in manners."[170] Chatham inveighed against "the
traffic and barter driven with every pitiful German prince that sells
his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country. This mercenary aid on
which you rely irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your
enemies. To overrun them with the mercenary sons of rapine and plunder;
devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while there was a foreign
troop in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never! never!
never!"
[170] Mahon: _History of England_.
Chatham's popularity, affected somewhat by his acceptance of a pension,
had been greatly diminished when he went to the House of Lords, but
now, when the country was in danger, all eyes were turned on him as the
only man who could conceivably extract from the situation peace with
honour. "If there be a man who has served this nation with honour to
himself and glory to his country," said George Grenville the younger in
the House of Commons on February 11, 1778, "if there be a man who has
carried the arms of Britain triumphant to every quarter of the globe
beyond the most sanguine expectations of the people, if there be a man
of whom the House of Bourbon stands more particularly in awe; if there
be a man in this country who unites the confidence of England and
America, is not he the proper person to treat with Americans, and not
those who have uniformly deceived and oppressed them? There is not one
present who is ignorant of the person to whom I allude. You all know I
mean a noble, near relation, Lord Chatham." Many years later an able
historian, reviewing the situation, repeated in no uncertain tone the
substance of the speech of the promising young statesman. "There was one
man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all
patriotic Englishmen were turned," Lecky has written. "In Chatham
England possessed a statesman whose genius in conducting a war was
hardly inferior to that of Marlborough in conducting an army. In France
his name produced an almost superstitious terror."[171]
[171] "I had the fortune [at Paris] to be treated with the sight of
what, next to Mr. Pitt, has occasioned most alarm in France, the Beast
of the Gévandon."--Walpole to Lady Mary Coke, 1765.
In America it was pronounced with the deepest affection and reverence.
He had, in the great French war, secured the Anglo-Saxon preponderance
in the colonies; he had defended the colonies in every stage of their
controversy about the Stamp Act, and had fascinated them by the
splendour of his genius. If any statesman could at the last moment
conciliate them, dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into flame the
loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was
Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no
statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a
war.[172]
[172] Lecky: _History of England_.
The state of affairs at home and abroad called for the strong hand of a
great minister. British troops were confined in Philadelphia and New
York; the navy had been starved; the commissariat of the troops in
America was shamefully mismanaged. America, not slow to follow the
example of the mother-country to employ foreign troops, signed a treaty
with France, the ratification of which by Congress took place on May 4,
1778.
"Thy triumphs, George, the western world resounds,
And Europe scarce thy paper _glory_ bounds!
Paper that trumps abroad thy martial toils,
And copious harvest of Canadian spoils:
_Tyrtæus-like_, how Burgoyne fights his men,
Belligerent alike with _sword_ and _pen_!
How Gates retires: and, as you rattle louder,
One Arnold sickens at the smell of powder!
How brave thine admirals! and so discreet
They never risk the honour of the fleet;
Nor trust the dangers of the middle-main,
Where Britain bids her thunder roar in vain;
But wisely _coasting_, give some privateer
A broadside; making her both feel and hear.
And sure, if _paper_ can so cheaply win,
The harmless war of paper is no sin.
* * * * *
Proceed, great Sir! and, breaking all restraint,
Embrace the _scarlet whore_, and be a _Saint_
_Sworn_ to maintain th' _established church_, advance
The cross of Rome, the miracles of France;
And leave us, though our liberties be lost,
In pious bills the privilege to _roast_.[173]
In breaking oaths be like Alcides strong;
Be weakly right, but obstinately wrong:
Be all the bigot martyr was before--
A blessing for the nation yet in store!
See other _Hampdens_, other _Cromwells_ rise,
And modern _tea-acts_ mimic _ship-supplies_:
Hark! the glad sounds revive of _me_ and _mine_,[174]
And stale prerogative of _right divine_!
ONE REVOLUTION RAIS'D YOU TO THE CROWN;
ANOTHER REVOLUTION MAY--DETHRONE."[175]
[173] In 1778 Sir George Saville introduced a Bill to enable Catholics
in England who abjured the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope to purchase
and inherit land, and to free their priests from liability to
imprisonment. The outcome of this was the Gordon Riots.
[174] "My subjects! My army! My dominions! My colonies! the odds,
however, even at St. James's are, that we shall hear no more of _my_
colonies from the same quarter."--Note by the author of the lampoon.
[175] Peregrine the Elder: _An Heroic Epistle to an Unfortunate
Monarch_.
CHAPTER XIX
ENGLAND AND AMERICA. III: THE LOSS OF AMERICA
On May 17, 1778, Lord North, "with deep dejection in his countenance,"
had laid before the House of Commons a plan of conciliation, similar to
Burke's resolution which two years earlier he had arrogantly rejected,
in which a Bill was proposed to enable the King to appoint commissioners
with sufficient powers to treat, consult and agree upon the means of
quieting the disorders now subsisting in certain of the colonies in
America. The three commissioners appointed had been unwisely chosen.
Lord Carlisle, though clever enough, had hitherto been known only as a
man of pleasure, and William Eden had recently denounced American
Independence in the House of Commons; while George Johnstone, who was
well acquainted with American affairs, was foolish enough at the outset,
through an intermediary, to offer a bribe of £10,000 to Read, a leading
member of Congress, "as a condition of bringing about a reunion between
Great Britain and her colonies." Read announced this attempt upon his
honesty in Congress. "I am not worth purchasing, but, such as I am," he
said indignantly, "the King of Great Britain is not rich enough to do
it."
Such a commission was foredoomed to failure. The whole country cried
aloud for Chatham, and the public desire was endorsed by North, who
again tendered his resignation to the King, who, however, would only
consent to receive Chatham as a minister subordinate to North. "I
declare in the strongest and most solemn manner," George wrote to his
minister, "that though I do not object to your addressing yourself to
Lord Chatham, yet that you must acquaint him that I shall never address
myself to him but through you, and on a clear explanation that he is to
step forth to support an administration wherein you are First Lord of
the Treasury.... I will only add, to put before your eyes my most inward
thoughts, that no advantage to this country, no present danger to
myself, can ever make me address myself to Lord Chatham or any other
branch of the Opposition.... Should Lord Chatham wish to see me before
he gives his answer, I shall most certainly refuse it."[176] Chatham
could not be expected to serve under North, and the negotiations ended
forthwith, leaving behind them in many minds, however, the feeling that
the final victory of the Americans would not be an unmixed evil for the
mother country, since, apparently, on the issue of the war depended the
question, far more vital than the independence or subordination of the
colonies, whether the King would be able to establish his system of
government by personal influence. "I had as little doubt, but if the
conquest of America should be achieved," said Walpole, "the moment of
the victorious army's return would be that of the destruction of our
liberty."[177]
[176] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[177] _Last Journals_, March, 1778.
No responsible statesman believed that England could succeed in
enforcing her will upon the colonies, let the struggle end as it might.
"As for conquering America, without foreign troops, it is entirely
impossible; and I think it pretty near a certainty that the rebels will
be in possession of all America by the Spring," Anthony Storer wrote to
Lord Carlisle, on December 29, 1775. "By the news of Fort St. John's and
Chambley, and the investiture of Quebec, their diligence and activity is
wonderful, and it must end in the possession of all North America. They
have taken a store-ship, and have several ships at sea. _De peu à peu
nous arrivons_; if they go on so another year--_fuit Ilium ingens
gloria_--we shall make but a paltry figure in the eyes of Europe. Come
to town, and be witness to the fall, or the re-establishment of our
present Empire."
Fox thought that the best use that could be made of the success at Long
Island would be to make conciliatory overtures. "It is become still more
necessary than ever to produce some manifesto, petition, or public
instrument upon the present situation of affairs; either to exhort his
Majesty to make the only proper use of his victory, by seizing this
opportunity of making advantageous offers of accommodation or to express
openly and fairly to him the well-grounded apprehensions that every man
must entertain from the power of the Crown in case his Majesty should be
able to subdue the American Continent by the force of his army,"[178]
Fox wrote on October 13, 1776, to Lord Rockingham; who, in his turn in
1778 said to Chatham, "I conceive that America will never again consent
to this country's having actual power within that continent." "As to
conquest, my Lords, it is impossible," Chatham, himself said in
Parliament on May 30, 1777, speaking on his motion to stop hostilities.
[178] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
Chatham, of course, had all along been opposed to the war. Speaking in
1775 of General Gage's inactivity, he said it could not be blamed, for
it was inevitable. "But what a miserable condition is ours, where
disgrace is prudence, and where it is necessary to be contemptible!" he
said. "You must repeal those Acts [the Boston Ports and Massachusetts
Bay Bills], and you _will_ repeal them. I pledge myself for it, that you
will repeal them. I stake my reputation on it. I will consent to be
taken for an idiot if they are not finally repealed. If," he concluded,
with a grave warning, "if the ministers persevere in misleading the
King, I will not say that they can alienate the affections of his
subjects from the Crown; but I will affirm that they will make the crown
not worth his wearing. I will not say that the King is betrayed; but I
will pronounce that the kingdom is undone."[179] No wonder the King
heaped upon the statesman, who endeavoured so eloquently to thwart his
plans, every objectionable epithet; referred to him as "that perfidious
man," and "a trumpet of sedition;" and said of his motion in 1777 to put
an end to the war: "Lord Chatham's motion can have no other use but to
convey some fresh fuel to the rebels. Like most of the other productions
of that extraordinary brain, it contains nothing but specious words and
malevolence."[180]
[179] _Chatham Correspondence._
[180] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
But while Chatham wished for peace, he had no desire for unconditional
surrender on the part of his country, and when on April 7, 1778, the
Duke of Richmond moved the Independence of America, Chatham, protesting
"against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy,"
made the last of the long series of eloquent speeches that adorn the
all-too-barren records of Parliamentary debates. "Before the Duke of
Richmond began, Lord Chatham entered the House, leaning on the arms of
his son William and his son-in-law, Lord Mahon. He bowed with much
courtesy to the peers, who, standing up out of respect, made a lane for
him to pass to his seat. He wore a suit of rich black velvet, and very
full wig. He was covered up to the knees in flannel. He looked pale and
emaciated, but his eyes retained all their native fire. When the Duke
sat down, Lord Chatham rose to oppose the motion. He made a rhetorical
speech, and declared it was probably the last time he should be able to
enter the walls of the House. The Duke of Richmond replied with much
tenderness. Chatham stood up again, attempted to speak, and sank down in
an apoplectic fit."[181] He was removed to the house of one of the
officers of Parliament, was in a few days sufficiently recovered to bear
the journey to his seat at Hayes, and there died on May 11. It is
characteristic of George III that the only remark he made _à propos_ of
the sudden illness of the great orator was an appeal to Lord North: "May
not the political exit of Lord Chatham incline you to remain at the head
of affairs?"[182]
[181] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[182] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
After Chatham's death, Lord North, Burke, and Fox united to pay tribute
to his career, while Parliament undertook to pay his debts, settled
£4,000 a year for ever to the title of Chatham, and voted a public
funeral. "I was rather surprised the House of Commons have unanimously
voted an address for a public funeral and a monument in Westminster
Abbey for Lord Chatham," wrote the ungenerous monarch, "but I trust it
is voted as a testimony of gratitude for his rousing the nation at the
beginning of the last war ... or this compliment, if paid to his general
conduct, is rather an offensive measure to me personally."[183] The
King's feelings were well known, with the result that the Court was
sparsely represented at the funeral, and as Gibbon said indignantly,
"Government tried to secure the double odium of suffering the thing to
be done, and of not doing it with a good grace."
[183] _Ibid._
"I should have been greatly surprised at the inclination expressed by
you to retire," George III had written to Lord North on January 31,
1778, "had I not known that, however you may now and then despond, yet
that you have too much personal affection for me, and sense of honour,
to allow such a thought to take any hold on your mind."[184] Now that
Chatham had gone, North could no longer point with clearness to a
successor. "The small party which Chatham had headed could not hope to
form a government of themselves since they had lost their chief. The
Whigs, under Lord Rockingham, had, in great measure, at least committed
themselves to the independence of America, and on that ground Lord North
could not but deprecate their return to power. There was henceforth no
great statesman to lead to that middle path, that course of conciliation
without compromise, which Chatham had pointed out, and perhaps might
have trodden."[185] Circumstances alter cases, and the difficulty of
naming a successor was so great that North yielded again to the King's
commands and entreaties, and was prevailed upon to remain in office.
[184] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[185] Mahon: _History of England_.
Slowly the rights which had caused the breach were abandoned. "I assure
you, at least so it appears to me, that American politics are very much
altered," Anthony Storer wrote to Lord Carlisle, on December 14, 1775.
"Taxation and the exercise of it are totally renounced. You never hear
the right mentioned, but in order to give it up."[186] The whole power
of the Opposition was put forward to force the Government into a pacific
path. "We have tried our strength," said Lord Camden; "we find ourselves
incapable of conquest; and as we cannot subdue, we are determined to
destroy."
[186] _Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
While all England desired peace, the King was still determined to
continue the war, unless the victorious colonists would surrender! "No
man in my dominions desires solid peace more than I do," he wrote to
Lord North on June 11, 1779. "But no inclination to get out of the
present difficulties, which certainly keep my mind very far from a state
of ease, can incline me to enter into the destruction of the empire.
Lord North frequently says that the advantages to be gained by this
contest could never repay the expense. I own that any way, be it ever so
successful, if a person will sit down and weigh the expense, they will
find, as in this last, that it has impoverished the state enriched; but
this is only weighing such points in the scale of a tradesman behind his
counter. It is necessary for those whom Providence has placed in my
station to weigh what expenses, though very great, are not sometimes
necessary to prevent what would be more ruinous than any loss of money.
The present contests with America I cannot help seeing as the most
serious in which any country was ever engaged. It contains such a train
of consequences that they must be examined to feel its real weight.
Whether the laying a tax was deserving all the evils that have arisen
from it I should suppose no man could allege without being thought
fitter for Bedlam than a seat in the senate; but step by step the
demands of America have risen. Independence is their object, which every
man, not willing to sacrifice every object to a momentary and inglorious
peace, must concur with me in thinking this country can never submit to.
Should America succeed in that, the West Indies must follow, not in
independence, but for their own interest they must become dependent on
America. Ireland would soon follow, and this Island reduced to itself,
would be a poor island indeed."[187]
[187] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
After this definite declaration of the King's intention, the Prime
Minister again made an effort to resign, only to have his application
treated as his previous ones had been. "Lord North's application to
resign within two days of the prorogation I can see in no other light
than as a continuance of his resolution to retire whenever my affairs
will permit it," George wrote to him on June 16, 1779, "for I never can
think that he, who so handsomely stood forward on the desertion of the
Duke of Grafton, would lose all that merit by following so undignified
an example." Again North yielded to his royal master's expressed wish,
and he was somewhat encouraged by the accession of strength to the
King's party in the new Parliament, which was at once shown by the
defeat of the proposal to re-elect Sir Fletcher Norton, who had angered
George by his speech when presenting the Commons' grant in 1777.
The King, too, took heart again at the increase of his influence in the
House of Commons. "I can never suppose this country so far lost to all
ideas of self-importance as to be willing to grant American
Independence,"[188] he wrote to Lord North in March, 1780; but everybody
else realised that peace must be made at any cost. Though Parliament had
been bought, the country was aroused; and, although the position of the
Government was temporarily strengthened in October by the victory of
Cornwallis over Gates in South Carolina, the surrender of the English
General at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, sealed the fate of the
ministry. The news arrived in England on November 25, 1781, two days
before the meeting of Parliament, but even now the King would not yield:
"The getting a peace at the expense of a separation from America is," he
still declared, "a step to which no difficulties shall ever get me to be
in the smallest degree an instrument."[189] Indeed, the only visible
sign of his distress on receiving the news was shown by the omission in
a letter to Lord George Germaine of the mention of the hour and minute
of his writing, an observance he never omitted. "I have received, with
sentiments of the deepest concern, the communication which Lord George
Germaine has made me, of the unfortunate result of the operations in
Virginia," he wrote. "I particularly lament it, on account of the
consequences connected with it, and the difficulties which it may
produce in carrying on the public business, or in repairing such a
misfortune. But I trust that neither Lord George Germaine, nor any
member of the Cabinet, will suppose, that it makes the smallest
alteration in those principles of my conduct which have directed me in
past time, and which will always continue to animate me under every
event, in the prosecution of the present contest."[190]
[188] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[189] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[190] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
"The aspect of affairs at the close of 1780 might indeed well have
appalled an English statesman. Perfectly isolated in the world, England
was confronted by the united arms of France, Spain, Holland, and
America; while the Northern league threatened her, if not with another
war, at least with the annihilation of the most powerful weapon of
offence. At the same time, in Hindostan Hyder Ali was desolating the
Carnatic and menacing Madras; and in Ireland the connexion was strained
to its utmost limit, and all real power had passed into the hands of a
volunteer force which was perfectly independent of the Government, and
firmly resolved to remodel the constitution. At home there was no
statesman in whom the country had any real confidence, and the whole
ministry was weak, discredited and faint-hearted. Twelve millions had
been added this year to the national debt, and the element of disorder
was so strong that London itself had been for some days at the mercy of
the mob."[191] But while George III insisted upon prosecuting the
war--he had by his firmness broken up the Whig phalanx, was it
conceivable that he should give way to the colonists?--and North, in
spite of his better judgment supported him,[192] the Opposition, was
every day gathering fresh adherents. "A sense of past error, and a
conviction that the American war might terminate in further destruction
to our armies, began from this time rapidly to insinuate itself into the
minds of men. Their discourse was quite changed, though the majorities
in Parliament were still quite ready to support the American War, while
all the world was representing it to be the height of madness and
folly."[193] "To-morrow," Selwyn wrote on June 11, 1781, to Lord
Carlisle, "I find a motion is to come from Fox concerning America, to
which he may, contrary to his expectation or wishes, find in the friends
of Government an assent. People now seem by their discourse to despair
more of that cause than ever. There has been wretched management,
disgraceful politics, I am sure; where the principal blame is the Lord
only knows; in many places, I am afraid."[194]
[191] Lecky: _History of England_.
[192] In November, 1779, Lord Gower resigned his office on the ground
that the war "must end in ruin to his Majesty and the country"; and
North, after informing the King that he had endeavoured to dissuade his
colleague from leaving the ministry, added: "In the argument Lord North
had certainly one disadvantage, which is that he holds in his heart, and
has held for three years past, the same opinion with Lord Gower."
[193] Duke of Grafton: _Autobiography_.
[194] _George Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
Fox on June 12 moved that the House should resolve itself into a
Committee to consider the American War, at the same time moving a
further resolution that the Government should take every possible
measure to conclude peace with the colonies. "The only objection made to
my motion," he declared in the course of debate, "is that it must lead
to American independence. But I venture to assert that _within six
months of the present day_, ministers themselves will come forward to
Parliament with some proposition of a similar nature. I know that such
is their intention, I announce it to the House." The resolution was lost
by 172 to 99; but the end was near."
"The attention of every one is confined to our situation in America,"
Anthony Storer wrote to Carlisle on November 26, 1781. "The Speech from
the Throne contains the same resolution which appeared in times when we
seemed to have a more favourable prospect of success, of continuing the
war, and of claiming the aid of Parliament to support the rights of
Great Britain." This was absurd and could not be countenanced. An
address to the King moved by Conway on February 22, 1782, petitioning
the King to stop the war, was only rejected by a single vote, and the
Government were obliged to accept a resolution asserting the
hopelessness of reducing America; while on March 20, North anticipated
a motion for his dismissal by announcing his resignation.
Under ministers pledged to peace, even the King saw that hostilities
could not be continued. Lord Rockingham began negotiations with the
United States, and these were brought to a successful conclusion by Lord
Shelburne. The treaty was signed in 1783, and the blow was the greatest
ever sustained by the King. "I that am born a gentleman," he said to
Thurlow, "shall never rest my head on my last pillow in peace and quiet,
as long as I remember the loss of my American colonies."
George contrived, however, by his tactful reply to the address of John
Adams, on the arrival of the latter as the first Ambassador from the
newly recognised United States to the Court of St. James's, to regain
his dignity and to impress his old enemy as well as his subjects with
the sense of his majesty that he could always introduce on occasions of
state. "Sir," said Adams, when presenting his credentials, "the United
States have appointed me their minister plenipotentiary to your Majesty,
and have directed me to deliver to your Majesty this letter, which
contains the evidence of it. It is in obedience to their express
commands that I have the honour to assure your Majesty of their
unanimous disposition to cultivate the most friendly and liberal
intercourse between your Majesty's subjects and their citizens, and of
their best wishes for your Majesty's health and happiness, and for that
of your royal family. The appointment of a minister from the United
States to your Majesty's Court will form an epoch in the history of
England and America. I think myself more fortunate than all my
fellow-citizens, in having the distinguished honour to stand in your
Majesty's royal presence in a diplomatic character, and I shall esteem
myself the happiest of men if I can be instrumental in recommending my
country more and more to your Majesty's royal benevolence, and of
restoring an entire esteem, confidence, and affection, or, in better
words, 'the old good-nature and the good old humour,' between people
who, though separated by an ocean, and under different governments, have
the same language, a similar religion, a kindred blood. I beg your
Majesty's permission to add that, although I have sometimes before been
intrusted by my country, it was never in my whole life in a manner so
agreeable to myself." To this George replied courteously, though the
effort to be conciliatory must have cost him much: "Sir, the
circumstances of this audience are so extraordinary, the language you
have now held is so extremely proper, and the feelings you have
discovered so justly adapted to the occasion, that I must say, that I
not only receive with pleasure the assurance of the friendly disposition
of the United States, but that I am very glad the choice has fallen upon
you to be their minister. I wish you, sir, to believe, and that it may
be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late contest
but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do, by the duty which I
owed to my people. I will be very frank with you. I was the last to
conform to the separation; but the separation having been made, and
having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would
be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an
independent power. The moment I see such sentiment and language as yours
prevail, and a disposition to give this country the preference, that
moment, I shall say, let the circumstances of language, religion and
blood, have their natural lawful effect."[195]
[195] Letter of John Adams to John Jay, American Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, June 9, 1783.
CHAPTER XX
CHARLES JAMES FOX AND WILLIAM PITT
Lord North had sent his resignation by messenger to Windsor on March 19,
1782, and George, who received the communication as he was going out
hunting, sent back a verbal reply, "Tell him I shall be in town
to-morrow morning and will then give an answer," after which he turned
to the Duke of Dorset and Lord Hinchinbrook[196] and said calmly, "Lord
North has sent in his resignation, but I shall not accept it." However,
at the interview next day Lord North was firm, and nothing that the
sovereign could say moved him from his purpose, for it was not only the
adverse majority in the House of Commons which determined him, but the
state of affairs in the colonies and abroad. "The nation, he knew well
was universally weary of a war, the misfortunes which had attended
which, though perhaps justly imputable to many other causes or persons,
were attributed principally to his errors of management. He beheld
himself now engaged in hostilities, direct or indirect, with half
Europe, in addition to America. Ireland, availing itself of our
embarrassments, loudly demanded commercial and political emancipation.
On every side, the Empire appeared crumbling into ruin. Minorca, long
invested, had already surrendered, after a defence protracted to the
last extremity. Gibraltar was closely besieged. In the East Indies, our
difficulties, financial as well as military, threatened the total
subversion of our wide extended authority in that quarter of the globe;
where Hyder Ali, though expelled by Sir Eyre Coote from the vicinity of
Madras, still maintained himself in the centre of the Carnatic. If the
First Minister looked to the West Indies, the prospect appeared still
more big with alarm. St. Christopher's attacked by the Marquis de
Bouille, might be hourly expected to surrender; and he had already
recaptured St. Eustatius, either by surprise, or by corrupting the
officer who commanded the garrison. Of all the chain of Caribee Islands
which had belonged to the Crown of Great Britain at the commencement of
the war, only Antigua and Barbadoes remained."[197]
[196] Afterwards Earl of Sandwich.
[197] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
George III, however, did not hold that these considerations should weigh
with his minister, whom henceforth he regarded as little better than a
traitor. It was characteristic of the King that in his anger he at once
forgot the services of twelve years, and sought to avenge himself for
the desertion, as he called it, by withholding the pension usually
granted to a Prime Minister on retirement. Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who,
apparently, had more consideration for George's reputation than the
monarch himself, represented that Lord North was not opulent, that his
father was still living, and that his sons had spent a great deal of
money. "Lord North is no friend of mine," said the ungrateful King.
"That may be so," replied Lord Thurlow, "but the world thinks otherwise:
and your Majesty's character requires that Lord North should have the
usual pension."[198] A pension of £4,000 a year was then reluctantly
granted.
[198] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
The resignation of Lord North was a great blow to his royal master, who
saw that with the retirement of this minister would disappear the
carefully built superstructure of government by personal influence. "He
would cease to 'be King' in his own acceptance of the word, and would
have to surrender the power for which he had been struggling for
two-and-twenty years into the hands of the party most hateful to
him."[199] "At last the fatal day has come," wrote George, who
seriously thought of retiring to Hanover in preference to placing
himself in the hands of the hated Opposition. "I would rather lose my
crown than submit to the Opposition," he had declared; and on December
18, 1779, he had written to Lord Thurlow, "From the cold disdain with
which I am treated, it is evident to me what treatment I am to expect
from Opposition, if I was to call them now into my service. To obtain
their support I must deliver up my person, my principles, my dominions
into their hands."
[199] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The King, however, was not of a nature to surrender at discretion, and
Thurlow was sent to Lord Rockingham to ascertain what terms of
capitulation could be obtained for the sovereign. It is proof of the
want of trust in George III that the Duke of Richmond, who had had much
experience of the methods of the Court, should, with apologies for "this
piece of impertinent advice," write in the following strain to
Rockingham. "Let me beseech you not to think that any preliminary is
opening, for I have good reason for believing nothing but trick is
meant. For God's sake, your own and the country's sake, keep back and be
very coy. Nothing but absolute necessity and severe pressure or force
will induce the Court to come to you in such a manner as to enable you
to do any good. These times are coming, and you must soon see all at
your feet in the manner you would wish and with the full means to do
what is right. In the meanwhile they will try all little tricks, and
most amply try to flatter your prejudices, if they conceive you have
any. If to anything like this you give way, you ruin yourself and them,
and the kingdom into the bargain, whereas by firmness all will come
right yet, and you will carry the nation with you with such _éclat_ as
to ensure you the means of doing what you wish."[200]
[200] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
Lord Rockingham took full advantage of this sage counsel, and to the
overture of the King made reply, "that he was very willing to serve his
Majesty but requested the honour of being admitted to a private audience
before any administration should be arranged." This demand George
ignored. "I told you that divisions would be attempted and so it has
been," Walpole wrote on March 23. "Lord Rockingham's constitutional
demands not proving palatable, on Thursday evening (21st) Lord Shelburne
was sent for to a house in the Park, and, after a parley of three hours,
declined. Next morning Lord Gower was tried, ditto. At four o'clock
to-day, and this is Saturday, no new step has been taken: if the whole
flag is not hung out this evening or to-morrow, I do not know what may
happen on Monday."
Eventually, however, the King arranged the administration with
Shelburne, and then sent him to inform Rockingham of the names of the
cabinet ministers. This irregularity angered the latter, who seriously
thought to decline to serve, for, as Admiral Keppel told Nicholls, he
"thought that the King had manifested such personal dislike to him, by
refusing him an audience, and arranging the administration with Lord
Shelburne, that, in his own opinion, he was not a fit person to be in
the King's service."[201] Besides this objection, Rockingham had no
faith in Shelburne,[202] but the latter protested as a guarantee of good
faith, "I passed my eldest to Lord Rockingham, which I had no occasion
to do, for I might have been Prime Minister myself"; and, finally,
persuaded by Fox, Burke, and the Duke of Richmond, Rockingham consented
to accept office, and kissed hands on March 27. "I was abused for lying
Gazettes," said Lord North, "but there are more lies in this one
(containing the official announcement of the Whig Cabinet) than in all
mine. Yesterday his Majesty was _pleased_ to appoint the Marquis of
Rockingham, Mr. Charles Fox, the Duke of Richmond, etc., etc."
[201] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
[202] Shelburne was most unpopular and always suspected of insincerity.
It was to him that Goldsmith made the singularly _mal-à-propos_ remark:
"Do you know, I could never conceive the reason why they call you
Malagrida, for Malagrida was a very good sort of man."
Parliament met on April 8, and a strange sight met the eyes of the
onlookers. "Never was a more total change of costume beheld than the
House of Commons presented to the eye when that assembly met for the
despatch of business after the Easter recess. The Treasury Bench, as
well as the places behind it, had been for so many years occupied by
Lord North and his friends, that it became difficult to recognise them
again in their new seats, dispersed over the Opposition benches, in
great coats, frocks, and boots. Mr. Ellis himself appeared for the first
time in his life in an undress. To contemplate the Ministers, their
successors, emerged from their obscure lodgings, or from Brookes's,
having thrown off their blue and buff uniforms; now ornamented with the
appendages of dress, or returning from Court, decorated with swords,
lace and hair-powder, excited still more astonishment."[203]
[203] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
In the second Rockingham Administration Charles James Fox held the
office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it cost George
III much to sanction this appointment, for he hated Fox more than even
he hated Chatham, not only for his attitude in politics but also for the
irregularity of his private life. "The King," wrote Wraxall, "who
considered Fox as a man ruined in fortune, of relaxed morals, and
surrounded with a crowd of followers resembling him in these
particulars, deprecated as the severest misfortune to himself and to his
subjects, the necessity of taking such a person, however eminent for
capacity, into his confidence or councils."[204] It was inevitable,
however, that Fox should hold high office, for he was undoubtedly the
foremost man in the Rockingham party. Having entered Parliament in 1768,
he had distinguished himself in the following year by a speech opposing
the claim of Wilkes to take his seat as member for Middlesex. "It was
all off-hand, all argumentative, in reply to Mr. Burke and Mr.
Wedderburn, and excessively well indeed," said his proud father. "I hear
it spoken of as an extraordinary thing, and I am, as you see, not a
little pleased with it."
[204] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a bust by J. Nollekens, R.A._
CHARLES JAMES FOX
_To face p. 180, Vol. II_]
Fox was rewarded for his opposition to the popular demagogue with a
Lordship of the Admiralty in February, 1770, under Lord North, but, as
it has already been stated, he resigned in order to be free to oppose
the Royal Marriage Act. He began to be recognised as a power in the
House, and Lord North soon made overtures to his erstwhile colleague to
rejoin the ministry as a Lord of the Treasury. This Fox did within a
year of his resignation, but his independence soon brought about another
rupture: and when, on a question of procedure, he caused the defeat of
the ministry by pressing an amendment to a division, the King wrote to
Lord North: "Indeed, that young man has so thoroughly cast off every
principle of common honour and honesty that he must become as
contemptible as he is odious; and I hope you will let him know you are
not insensible of his conduct towards you."[205] The Prime Minister took
the hint, and dismissed Fox in a delightfully laconic note. "Sir, His
Majesty has thought proper to order a new Commission of the Treasury in
which I do not see your name."[206] This was thought to be a good thing
for Fox; and Horace Walpole wrote on February 24, 1774: "The famous
Charles Fox was this morning turned out of his place of Lord of the
Treasury for great flippancies in the House towards North. His parts
will now have a full opportunity of showing whether they can balance his
character, or whether patriotism can whitewash it."
[205] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[206] Russell: _Life and Times of C. J. Fox_.
In opposition Fox proved himself a doughty opponent of his late leader's
American policy, and his vigorous speeches on the subject earned him the
undying enmity of the King. "The war of the Americans is a war of
passion," he declared on November 26, 1778, in an endeavour to force the
ministry into a pacific path; "it is of such a nature as to be supported
by the most powerful virtues, love of liberty and of country, and at the
same time by those passions in the human heart which give courage,
strength, and perseverance to man; the spirit of revenge for the injury
you have done them, of retaliation for the hardships inflicted on them,
and of opposition to the august powers you would have exercised over
them; everything combines to animate them to this war, and such a war is
without end; for whatever obstinacy enthusiasm ever inspired man with,
you will now have to contend with in America, no matter what gives birth
to that enthusiasm, whether the name of religion or of liberty, the
effects are the same; it inspires a spirit that is unconquerable and
solicits us to undergo difficulties and dangers; and as long as there is
a man in America, so long will you have him against you in the field."
And in the following year he compared George III with Henry VI. "Both
owed the crown to revolutions, both were pious princes, and both lost
the acquisitions of their predecessors." George III could not
differentiate between doctrine and action, and, because Fox supported
the rights of the Americans, looked upon him henceforth as a rebel.
Later, when of all the colonies only Boston remained in the hands of the
English, and Wedderburn with foolhardy audacity ventured in the House of
Commons to compare North as a war minister with Chatham, Fox created a
sensation by declaring that "not Lord Chatham, nor Alexander the Great,
nor Cæsar ever conquered so much territory in the course of all their
wars, as Lord North had lost in one campaign!"
[Illustration: _From a caricature published March 11th, 1784_
THE UNFORTUNATE ASS
_To face p. 183, Vol. II_]
Fox's most grievous exhibition in the eyes of the sovereign was,
however, his speech on the first day of the autumn session of 1781 in
the debate on the Address to the Crown. "Those who are ignorant of the
character of the Prince whose Speech we have just heard might be induced
to consider him as an unfeeling despot, exulting in the horrid sacrifice
of the liberty and lives of his people," he said.[207] The Speech
itself, divested of the disguise of royal forms, can only mean, "Our
losses in America have been most calamitous. The blood of my subjects
has flowed in copious streams, throughout every part of that continent.
The treasures of Great Britain have been wantonly lavished; while the
load of taxes imposed on an overburdened country is becoming
intolerable. Yet I will continue to tax you to the last shilling. When,
by Lord Cornwallis's surrender they are for ever extinct, and a further
continuance of hostilities can only accelerate the ruin of the British
Empire, I prohibit you from thinking of peace. My rage for conquest is
unquenched and my revenge unsated: nor can anything except the total
subjugation of my revolted American subjects, allay my animosity."
[207] "The autumnal session of Parliament was opened on November 27 by a
speech from the Throne, the language of which was not less determinate
than it had ever been in maintaining the necessity of continuing the
most vigorous exertions for the preservation of the essential rights and
permanent interests of the country."--Aikin: _The Annals of the Reign of
George III_.
This speech, which George III regarded as an open declaration of war
against himself, earned golden opinions for the orator. "This session
was the glorious campaign of Charles Fox," says Nicholls[208]; and
Walpole at this time wrote to Sir Horace Mann, "Mr. Fox is the first
figure in all the places I have mentioned, the hero in Parliament, at
the gaming table, at Newmarket." The King, however, very clearly showed
his opinion of Fox, when at a _levée_ early in March, 1782, the latter
presented an Address from Westminster. "The King took it out of his hand
without deigning to give him a look even, or a word; he took it as you
would take your pocket-handkerchief from your _valet-de-chambre_ without
any mark of displeasure or attention, or expression of countenance
whatever, and passed it to his lord-in-waiting, who was the Duke of
Queensberry."[209]
[208] _Recollections and Reflections._
Indeed, George III had made up his mind that under no circumstances
should this particular member of the Opposition hold office. "I was
assured last night," George Selwyn wrote to Lord Carlisle on March 13,
1782, "that the King is so determined as to Charles, that he will not
hear his name mentioned in any overtures for a negotiation, and declares
that the proposal for introducing him into his councils is totally
inadmissible.[209] I should not be surprised if this was true in its
fullest extent!"[210]
[209] _George Selwyn: His Life and His Letters._
[210] _Ibid._
Fox's attitude was certainly not conciliatory, if reliance may be placed
on George Selwyn, who was certain to exaggerate unamiable traits in the
conduct of the statesman. "He (Fox) spoke of all coming to a final issue
now within a very short space of time," Selwyn wrote on March 19, 1782;
"he talked of the King under the description of Satan, a comparison
which he seems fond of, and has used to others; so he is _sans
ménagement de paroles_. It is the _bon vainqueur et despotique_; he has
adopted all the supremacy he pretended to dread in his Majesty." And Fox
apparently was not the only member of the party excited by the prospect
of power. "I stayed at Brookes's this morning till between two and
three," wrote the same correspondent two days later, "and then Charles
was giving audiences in every corner of the room, and that idiot Lord
Derby[211] telling aloud whom he should turn out, how civil he intended
to be to the Prince and how rude to the King."[212]
[211] Edward, twelfth Earl of Derby (1752-1834).
[212] _George Selwyn: His Life and His Letters._
[Illustration:
_Keppel
The King
Richmond
Shelburne
Fox_
_From a caricature published in 1782_
THE CAPTIVE PRINCE, OR, LIBERTY GONE MAD
_To face p. 186, Vol II_]
The King, faithful to the underhand methods that he had so often
employed with success, at once attempted to sow the seeds of dissension
in the cabinet; but in truth this was unnecessary, for, with five
Rockinghamites, five Shelburnites and Thurlow, the King's nominee,
comprising that body, "every man saw that such a cabinet was formed for
contention, and that it could not long hold together."[213] George
deliberately showed his aversion to the Prime Minister, by
withholding from him his confidence; and, indeed, he could not forgive
him for passing a measure for "an effectual plan of economy throughout
the branches of public expenditure," the avowed object of which was to
"circumscribe the unconstitutional power of the Crown"; that is to say,
the number of sinecures at the sovereign's disposal was effectively
diminished, the amount of secret service money was reduced, and only
those could hold patent places in the colonies who would live there.
Burke was responsible for this Bill, which deprived King and ministers
of many sources of patronage and compelled them to fall back on peerages
as rewards for services. "I fear," said Burke, referring to the
subsequent lavish bestowal of peerages, "that I am partly accountable
for so disproportionate an increase of honours, by having deprived the
Crown and the minister of so many other sources of recompense or reward,
which were extinguished by my Bill of Reform."[214]
[213] Prior: _Life of Burke_.
[214] Prior: _Life of Burke_.
[Illustration: _From a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds_
EDMUND BURKE
_To face p. 187, Vol. II_]
"Fox already shines as greatly in place as he did in opposition, though
infinitely more difficult a task," Walpole wrote to Sir Horace Mann on
May 5. "He is now as indefatigable as he was idle. He has perfect
temper, and not only good humour, but good nature, and, which is the
first quality in a Prime Minister of a free country, has more common
sense than any man, with amazing parts that are neither ostentatious nor
affected." Not all Fox's tact, however, could avert ill-feeling between
Shelburne and himself, and this was aggravated by the clashing of the
duties of their offices in the matter of the treaty with America, for
while the negotiations with the revolted colonies belonged to the
department of Home Affairs over which the Earl presided, the arrangement
of a peace with the foreign countries with which England was at war came
within the province of the Foreign Office! "In addition to the
difficulties naturally arising from this division of responsibility, the
two Secretaries differed on policy. Fox desired an immediate recognition
of American Independence, in the hope of detaching the Americans from
the French alliance, and so putting England in a better position for
dealing with her enemies; Shelburne agreed with the King that the
acknowledgment should be a condition of a joint treaty with France and
America, for England would then have a claim to receive some return for
it."[215]
[215] Hunt: _Political History of England (1760-1801)_.
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds_
WILLIAM PETTY, EARL OF SHELBURNE
(AFTERWARDS MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE)
_To face p. 189, Vol. II_]
Before any definite rupture came, however, Lord Rockingham caught the
influenza, and died on July 1, 1782. Nicholls has stated that when Fox
was asked who was to succeed Rockingham, he replied, "I think it must be
the Earl of Shelburne; he is first oar, and I do not see how we can
resist his claim";[216] and according to other reports Fox himself
aspired to be the leader of the party. Little credence, however, must be
given to these chroniclers, for Fox was overtly opposed to Shelburne;
and he must have known that the King would never summon him to the head
of affairs. Burke and the rest of the Rockingham party resisted the
claims of Shelburne and suggested the Duke of Portland, who himself
claimed to have a better right than anyone else to be Prime Minister.
Fox actually went to the King to propose that the vacant office should
be given to the Duke of Portland. "Mr. Fox reached the royal closet only
in time enough to learn that Lord Shelburne had just gone out with the
appointment of First Lord of the Treasury. Mr. Fox, expressing great
astonishment on hearing this, asked his Majesty, 'If under these
circumstances he had any objection to his (Fox's) naming the new
Secretary of State.' To this his Majesty replied, 'That, sir, is already
done.' On which Mr. Fox rejoined, 'Then, I trust, your Majesty can
dispense with my services.' The King replied hastily. 'That, also, sir,
is done.'"[217] Thereupon the Duke of Portland, Lord John Cavendish, and
Burke[218] also retired, as well as many other officials, and after an
interval, Keppel, who had remained at the Admiralty, joined them. Their
places were filled by Lord Grantham, Earl Temple, and William Pitt.
[216] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
[217] Huish: _Public and Private Life of George III_.
[218] "Burke, who manifested the greatest reluctance to quit the Pay
Office, required rather to be impelled in making that sacrifice, than
appeared to feel any spontaneous disposition towards resigning so
lucrative an appointment, of which he had scarcely tasted the first
fruits."--Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
William Pitt, like his great opponent Fox, had established himself with
his first speech, which secured the encomiums of all who were present.
"We had a debate on Monday, when Mr. Pitt for the first time made such a
speech, that it excited the admiration very justly of every man in the
House. Except he had foreseen that particular species of nonsense which
Lord Nugent was to utter, his speech could not be prepared; it was
delivered without any kind of improper assurance, but with the exact
proper self-possession which ought to accompany a speaker. There was not
a word or a look which one would have wished to correct. This, I
believe, in general was the universal sense of all those who heard him,
and exactly the effect which his speech had on me, at the time I heard
it." So wrote Anthony Storer to Lord Carlisle on February 28, 1781; and
Wraxall was not less complimentary. "It was in reply to Lord Nugent that
Pitt first broke silence, from under the Gallery on the Opposition side
of the House. The same composure, self-possession, and imposing dignity
of manner, which afterwards so eminently characterized him when seated
on the Treasury Bench, distinguished him on this first essay of his
powers, though he then wanted three months to have completed his
twenty-second year. The same nervous, correct, and political diction,
free from any inaccuracy of language, or embarrassment of deportment,
which, as First Minister, he subsequently displayed, were equally
manifested on this occasion. Formed for a popular assembly, he seemed
made to guide its deliberations, from the first moment that he addressed
the members composing it."[219] Burke declared that the young man "was
not merely a chip of the old block, but the old block itself"; Walpole
doubted "whether he will not prove superior even to Charles Fox"; while
Fox, the most generous of men, when some one said to him, "Pitt will be
one of the first men in the House of Commons," replied, "He is already."
Pitt, although but twenty-three years of age, felt so sure of himself
that he declined an offer of office from Rockingham, declaring "he would
never accept a subordinate post under Government;" and, although he was
a barrister without practice and with an income of less than £300,
refused Lord Shelburne's invitation to become Vice-Treasurer of Ireland
with a salary of £5,000, and thereupon was appointed Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
[219] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
The King, at the opening of Parliament on December 5, stated that he had
offered to declare the American colonies free and independent; but what
it cost him calmly to make this announcement may be deduced from the
fact that afterwards he asked anxiously, "Did I lower my voice when I
came to that part of my speech?"[220] According to Nicholls, even now,
when conquest was impossible, peace was certainly made against the
wishes of George, "who, though he probably had no desire to remove the
Earl of Shelburne, determined to make that noble Earl feel his
displeasure. The "Household Troops" were therefore ordered to express in
Parliament their disapproval of the peace."[221] The King, however,
always denied that he intrigued against this Minister, but it is a
regrettable fact that the sovereign's word in such matters cannot be
accepted; and Shelburne certainly believed the royal influence was
directed against him, at least until the formation of the Coalition, the
success of which would place George in the awkward position of having to
bestow the seals of office upon the men he regarded as his enemies.
[220] Walpole: _Last Journals_.
[221] _Recollections and Reflections._
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker. From a bust by T. Nollekens,
R.A._
WILLIAM PITT
_To face p. 192, Vol. II_]
"Charles is mad, and ruining himself, I fear to all intents and
purposes," Lady Sarah Napier wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien, July 9, 1782.
"It _is said_ that there is to-night a meeting of thirty-six members and
Lords at Lord Fitzwilliam's, all _violent_ and vowing opposition; if
this is _true_ they will have force enough to do double mischief but not
to _crush_ Lord Shelburne, whose cards they are playing by giving him
the fairest opportunity to court popular favour, by opposing good
measures and fairness to violence, instead of sticking to him like
leeches as they ought to have done and preventing his doing mischief."
Fox certainly was desirous to depose Shelburne and upon consideration
saw that this could be done if he and his friends coalesced with Lord
North and his party. Lord North, who was alarmed lest the House of
Commons should institute an inquiry into his conduct in having carried
on the war after its issue was clear, saw that this union of parties
would protect him, and, after much negotiation, an arrangement was
effected on February 16, 1783, the terms of which were that, in the
event of a change of Administration, the Duke of Portland should be
First Lord of the Treasury, North and Fox Secretaries of State, and that
the other offices should be divided between the two parties.
The day after the Coalition was settled, there was a debate on the
Articles of Peace, and the government was left in a minority, the
figures being 208-224. Thereupon Shelburne resigned.
The King then pressed Pitt to form a government, when he refused on the
27th made overtures to Gower, and eventually endeavoured to detach North
from the Coalition, by offering him the Treasury if he would desert Fox.
The King then sent for the Duke of Portland, and offered to give way on
all points except that Thurlow must remain Lord Chancellor. The Duke,
who knew Thurlow's intractability and feared his influence over the
King, refused to yield to this stipulation, and negotiations were broken
off. George's mind threatened to give way under the sense of humiliation
from which he was suffering, and William Grenville was impressed by his
mental agitation and the "inconceivable quickness" of his utterances. On
March 23 he again invited Pitt to form an administration, declaring
that, "after the manner I have been personally treated by both the Duke
of Portland and Lord North, it is impossible that I can ever admit
either of them into my service." Pitt, however, refused to lead such a
forlorn hope, and George again announced his intention to go to
Hanover[222] and was with difficulty weaned from his purpose by Thurlow.
"There is nothing easier, sir, than to go over to Hanover," said the
latter. "It may not, however, prove so easy to return from thence to
this country, when your Majesty becomes tired of Germany. Recollect the
precedent of James II, who precipitately embraced a similar expedient.
Your Majesty must not think for a moment of adopting so imprudent and
hazardous a step. Time and patience will open a remedy to the present
evils."[223] Only then did George give way, and on April 2 accept the
Coalition Ministry.
[222] "The present King [George IV]," Lord Holland wrote, "told me a
story of his father's plan of retiring to Hanover, and described, with
more humour than filial reverence, his arrangement of the details, and
especially of the liveries and dresses, about which he was so earnest
that it amounted almost to insanity."--_Memorials of Fox._
[223] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
The Coalition was, however, foredoomed to a brief existence. It was
unpopular in the country, where it was regarded as an unnatural
alliance, from which was apprehended, as Wilberforce happily put it, "a
progeny stamped with the features of both parents, the violence of the
one party, and the corruption of the other."
"Lord North, for twelve years, with his war and contracts,
The people he nearly had laid on their backs;
Yet stoutly he swore he sure was a villain
If e'er he had bettered his fortune a shilling.
Derry down, down, down, derry down.
"Against him Charles Fox was a sure bitter foe,
And cried, that the empire he'd soon overthrow;
Before him all honour and conscience had fled,
And vowed that the axe it should cut off his head.
Derry down, down, down, derry down.
"Edmund Burke, too, was in a mighty great rage,
And declared Lord North the disgrace of his age;
His plans and his conduct he treated with scorn,
And thought it a curse that he'd ever been born.
Derry down, down, down, derry down.
"So hated was he, Fox and Burke they both swore,
They infamous were if they enter'd his door;
But, prithee, good neighbour, now think on the end,
Both Burke and Fox call him their very good friend!
Derry down, down, down, derry down.
"Now Fox, North, and Burke, each is a brother,
So honest, they swear, there is not such another;
No longer they tell us we're going to ruin,
The people they _serve_ in whatever they're doing.
Derry down, down, down, derry down.
* * * * *
"But Chatham, thank heaven! has left us a son;
When _he_ takes the helm, we are sure not undone;
The glory his father revived of the land,
And Britannia has taken Pitt by the hand.
Derry down, down, down, derry down!"
The King, as a matter of course, thwarted the new ministers from the
outset, and made no secret that he wished that Lord North, whom now he
hated as much as Fox, was "eighty or ninety or dead." He quarrelled with
the Administration over the amount of an allowance to the Prince of
Wales, and saw an opportunity to dismiss it on the question of Fox's
India Bill, by which measure powers were sought to transfer the control
of the great dominion that Warren Hastings had built up from the East
India Company to a Board of seven commissioners, who should hold office
for five years and be removable only on an Address to the Crown from
either House of Parliament. This was bitterly opposed by the merchant
class, who saw in it a precedent for the revocation of other charters;
but the clause that aroused the greatest bitterness was that in which
it was laid down that the appointment of the seven commissioners should
be vested in Parliament, and afterwards in the Crown. This was, of
course, equivalent to vesting the appointments and the enormous
patronage attaching thereto in the Ministry, and "it was an attempt,"
said Lord Thurlow, "to take the diadem from the King's head and put it
on that of Mr. Fox." The Bill was fought with every weapon, but it
passed the Commons by 208 to 102, and in the Lords there was no division
on the first reading. The King, however, was determined the measure
should make no further progress, and he gave Lord Temple a paper written
in his own royal hand: "That he should deem those who should vote for it
not only not his friends, but his enemies; and that if he (Earl Temple)
could put this in stronger words, he had full authority to do so."[224]
The result of this was that ministers found themselves in a minority of
twelve on a question of adjournment, and the Bill itself was thrown out
on December 17, by 95 to 76.
[224] "It is said and believed that Lord Temple used the King's name and
got many votes by it; even at the last critical moment, Lord Graham did
all he could to bring the old Duke of Montrose to the House against the
Bill; but the old soul nobly resisted, and told him he was too old to
turn fool or knave, having as yet deserved neither of these epithets
during a long life. But poor pitiful changelings who tremble at the
King's name were soon found, and as you know they carried it on
Wednesday."--Lady Sarah Napier to Lady Susan O'Brien, December 19.
The same day the King contemptuously dismissed the Ministry, declining
to receive in person their seals of office. It is interesting, as
showing how history is made, to compare three contemporary accounts of
how the principal members of the Administration were notified that their
services were dispensed with. Lady Sarah Napier wrote: "On Thursday
night, the Duke of Portland, Lord North, and Charles [Fox] were
deliberating in Council together what was to be done, when at twelve
o'clock comes a messenger to Lord North and Charles to deliver up the
seals immediately. The Duke of Portland guessed he had a _billet doux_
of the same nature and went home to seek it."[225] The Locker
Manuscripts gave another account. "Lord North received his dismissal
with characteristic humour. He was in bed when the despatch arrived, and
being informed that Sir E. Nepian, the Under-Secretary, desired to see
him, he replied that in that case Sir Evan must see Lady North too; and
he positively refused to rise. Sir Evan was accordingly admitted to the
bedroom, and, on informing Lord North that he came by his Majesty's
commands to demand the seals of his office, Lord North gave him the
keys of the closet where they were kept, and turned round to
sleep."[226] Wraxall gives yet a third story of the incident. "Lord
North, having deposited the Seal of his office in the hands of his son
Colonel North, one of his Under-Secretaries, who could nowhere be found
for a considerable time, the King waited patiently at St. James's till
it should be found. Mr. Pollock, first clerk in Lord North's office, who
had already retired to rest, being called out of his bed in consequence
of the requisition of his Majesty, went in search of Colonel North.
After a long delay, he was found, and produced the Seal, which being
brought to the King about one o'clock in the morning, he delivered it
into Lord Temple's hands, and then returned to the Queen's House."[227]
[225] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
[226] Quoted in Massey's _History of the Reign of George III_.
[227] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
The King at once sent for Pitt, who, now in his twenty-fifth year,
accepted the position of Prime Minister, and so there was:
"A sight to make surrounding nations stare,
A kingdom trusted to a schoolboy's care."[228]
[228] _The Rolliad._
Though the new government was in a minority of about one hundred, Pitt,
at the King's express desire, kept his place "in hopes that a sense of
true patriotism would finally triumph over the factious spirit of
party." After a time, however, it became obvious to George--it had all
along been clear to every one else--that the wished-for consummation
would not arrive, and when the hostile majority instead of decreasing,
increased, Pitt, weary of the struggle, told the King, "Sir, I am
mortified to see that my perseverance has been of no avail, and that I
must resign at last." "If so," replied the King, "I must resign
too."[229] This catastrophe was averted by the prorogation of the
existing Parliament on March 24, and its dissolution on the following
day.[230] The elections resulted in an overwhelming majority for Pitt,
who held office without a break until March 14, 1801.
[229] Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_.
[230] On March 23, 1784, the Great Seal of England was stolen from the
Lord Chancellor's house in Great Ormond Street. It was taken from a
drawer of a writing table, in which nothing else was disturbed. Much
discussion arose, consequently, and there was a suspicion that the theft
might have been inspired by political reasons, since there was a doubt
whether Parliament could be dissolved except under the Great Seal.
CHAPTER XXI
THE KING'S MALADY
Throughout his life George had persevered in a course of systematic
abstinence and regular exercise, and he had endeavoured to strengthen an
apparently sound and vigorous body by outdoor pursuits. He rose early
both in winter and summer, never remained at any entertainment later
than midnight, and usually went to bed before that hour. Corpulence was
the bane of his family, and, perturbed at the thought that he might
suffer from it, he discussed the question with his uncle, William of
Cumberland, whose stoutness was notorious. "It is constitutional," said
the latter, "and I am much mistaken if your Majesty will not become as
large as myself, before you attain to my age." "Perhaps," suggested
George, "it arises from your not using sufficient exercise?" "I use,
nevertheless, constant and severe exercise of every kind," his uncle
assured him. "But there is another effort requisite, in order to repress
this tendency, which is much more difficult to practise; and without
which, no exercise, however violent, will suffice. I mean, great
renunciation and temperance. Nothing else can prevent your Majesty
from growing to my size."[231] Always inclined to moderation in food and
drink, after this conversation the temperance of George's life became
almost proverbial. "It is a fact," says Wraxall, "that during many years
of his life, after coming up from Kew, or from Windsor, often on
horseback, and sometimes in heavy rain, to the Queen's House; he has
gone in a Chair to St. James's, dressed himself, held a _levée_, passed
through all the forms of that long and tedious ceremony, for such it was
in the way that he performed it; without leaving any individual in the
Circle unnoticed: and has afterwards assisted at a Privy Council, or
given audience to his Cabinet Ministers and others, till five and even
sometimes till six o'clock. After so much fatigue of body and of mind,
the only refreshment or sustenance that he usually took consisted in a
few slices of bread and butter and a dish of tea, which he sometimes
swallowed as he walked up and down, previous to getting into his
carriage, in order to return into the country."[232] It is probable,
however, that his complaint was increased by his extreme abstemiousness,
and his rigid morality, for, as Lord Carlisle has stated, "the family
disorder introduced by his mother required high living and strong wines.
The French call it, '_les humeurs froids_.'"[233]
[231] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of His Own Times_.
[232] _Ibid._
When Mrs. Delany praised George III for his moderation, "No, no, it is
no virtue," replied the monarch, "I only prefer eating plain and little,
to growing diseased and infirm."--_Diary and Letters of Madame
D'Arblay._
[233] _Reminiscences of the fifth Earl of Carlisle._
[Illustration: _From a caricature by Gear, 1788_
GEORGE III
_To face p. 202, Vol. II_]
Although wine was recommended to him to assist digestion, he declined to
believe in its efficacy;[234] and it is amusing to read that he desired
the members of his _suite_ to be as abstemious as himself. Miss Burney
has narrated a story of that quaint wag, Colonel Goldsworthy, who, after
his return from hunting with the King, damp, muddy, and tired, was
called by the King. "'Sir,' said I, smiling agreeably, with the
rheumatism just creeping all over! but still, expecting something a
little comfortable, I wait patiently to know his gracious pleasure, and
then, 'Here, Goldsworthy, I say,' he cries, 'will you have a little
barley water?' Barley water in such a plight as that! Fine compensation
for a wet jacket, truly!--barley water! I never heard of such a thing in
my life! barley water after a day's hard hunting." "And did you drink
it?" Miss Burney asked. "And did the King drink it himself?" "Yes, God
bless his Majesty!" replied the equerry, "but I was too humble a
subject to do the same as my King."[235]
[234] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
[235] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
Wraxall and many other contemporaries have stated that the King enjoyed
almost perfect health until 1788, but this only shows with what success
the truth was hidden, for, as we have seen, he was seriously ill in
1762, and in danger of losing his life and reason three years later;
while in 1766 his health temporarily gave way under the mental
excitement occasioned by affairs of state,[236] and, a little known
chronicler states, in 1782 he was again "extremely indisposed".[237]
[236] _Grenville Papers._
[237] "On the day previous to the celebration of the Queen's birthday in
1782 [the Queen's birthday was officially recognized in the middle of
January], the King was extremely indisposed, and was twice let blood. At
the Drawing-room next day his Majesty was seized with a bleeding at the
nose, and was obliged to retire very soon after three o'clock; and his
Majesty continued so much indisposed that he did not appear in the
ball-room in the evening. In a few days his Majesty was so much
recovered as to be deemed entirely out of danger."--Southy: _Authentic
Memoirs of George the Third_.
The mental derangement of 1788 is usually stated to have been first
discerned in the autumn, but as a matter of fact the symptoms were
obvious much earlier in the year, although it was then declared the King
was suffering only from a bilious disorder. In the spring Sir George
Baker attended him, and gave it as his opinion that the bile did not
flow properly; but the patient declined to take medicine, and, as Mrs.
Papendiek states, "he was up and down in his condition--better or worse,
but did not rally." At Easter, Dr. Heberden was called in, and,
considering the case alarming, invited Dr. Munro to consult with him.
"The great desire," according to Mrs. Papendiek, "was to keep the
circumstance secret as much as possible from the public, to hasten the
session, and direct their hopes to the ease of summer business, to
change of air, and other restorations. The King was aware of the
probability of his malady, but was unconscious of its having already
having made great strides. Dr. Munro retired and was not again called
in."[238]
[238] _Court and Private Life._
"Having had rather a smart bilious attack, which, by the goodness of
Divine Providence, is quite removed," the King wrote to the Bishop of
Worcester on June 8, "Sir George Baker has strongly recommended me to
the going for a month to Cheltenham, as he thinks the water efficacious
on such occasions, and that an absence from London will keep me free
from certain fatigues that attend long audiences."[239] The departure
was postponed until July 12, when the King went with the Queen and the
Princesses to Cheltenham, where he stayed at Bay's Hill Lodge, the seat
of the Earl of Fauconberg. From there he made excursions to Tewkesbury,
Gloucester, Worcester[240] and some other places; but neither the change
nor the waters benefited him, and on August 16, the royal family
returned to Windsor.
[239] Jesse: _Memoirs of George III_.
[240] It was not only at Windsor that George addressed him to the
passers-by. "This, I suppose, is Worcester New Bridge," he asked some
one in the streets of Worcester. "Yes, please your Majesty." "Then,"
said the King, "let me have a huzza"; and taking off his hat, he set the
example.--_Georgiana._
Miss Burney has told us how the King was very sensible of the great
change there was in himself, and how he said to Lady Effingham, when she
came to visit him, "You see me, all at once, an old man." Slowly but
surely the disorder increased, and it became more and more obvious that
his intellect was affected.[241] Then, on October 16, he went out in the
dew, and instead of changing his damp shoes and stockings, he rode to
town in them, and held a _levée_. It was clear that he had caught cold,
and on his return to Kew the Queen begged him to take a cordial, but
instead he ate a pear and drank a glass of cold water, after which he
felt unwell, and went to bed earlier than usual. "About one in the
morning," Sir Gilbert Elliot has recorded, "he was seized violently
with a cramp or some other violent thing in the stomach which rendered
him speechless, and was _all but_. The Queen ran out in great alarm in
her shift, or with very little clothes, among the pages, who, seeing her
in that situation, were at first retiring out of respect, but the Queen
stopped them, and sent them instantly for the apothecary at Richmond,
during which time the King had continued in the fits and speechless. The
apothecary tried to make him swallow something strong, but the King, who
appeared not to have lost his senses, still liked a bit of his own way,
and rejected by signs everything of that sort. They contrived, however,
to cheat him, and got some cordial down in the shape of medicine, and
the fit went off."
[241] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
After this, George was never really well until the attack had run its
course. He slept but little, talked unceasingly and only stopped when
actually exhausted, and was very weak. "I cannot get on without it," he
said, showing a walking stick, "my strength seems diminishing hourly."
On October 22, Sir George Baker informed ministers that the King's
condition was critical yet "to stop further lies and any fall of the
stock,"[242] he held a _levée_ on the 24th, when, however, his
disordered dress and vacant manner left no doubt as to the nature of
his malady. On the following Sunday at church, in the middle of the
sermon he started up and embraced the Queen and the Princesses in a
frantic manner, exclaiming, "You know what it is to be nervous." A day
or two later, after a private concert, he went up to Dr. Ayrton, and
laying his hand on the musician's shoulder, "I fear, Sir," he said, "I
shall not long be able to hear music: it seems to affect my head and it
is with difficulty I bear it," and then added softly, "Alas! the best of
us are but frail mortals."[243] About the same time, after a long ride,
he burst into tears, and exclaimed, "I wish to God I may die, for I am
going to be mad."
[242] Stanhope: _Life of Pitt_.
[243] _Relics of Royalty._
We are indebted to Philip Withers for our knowledge of the King's first
attack. "My office places me at the fountain head of information," he
has written. "As senior Page of the Presence my apartment is situated
between the grand Anti-chamber and the Closet of Private Audience. In
each room there is a door of communication with my apartment, and I am
constantly prepared to execute commands. The doors of my apartment open
near the fireplaces of the Closet and Anti-chamber; and as there is a
current of air passing through the doors (for they are opposite to each
other) the Fireplaces are defended by lofty, magnificent screens so
that either door may be left a little open without being noticed. In the
common course of things I am accustomed to disregard both the company
and conversation; and, indeed, it would be highly indecent."[244] That
Withers was an unscrupulous fellow is obvious, for he was scoundrel
enough to turn a dishonest penny by publishing the secrets he acquired
by eavesdropping; but, in spite of the way it was obtained, his
testimony is valuable. He was, however, an ingenuous youth, and after
stating in his narrative that there was abroad a suspicion that the
disease was hereditary, he begs that people "will forbear to credit an
opinion in which so many innocent and amiable children are interested."
"I do not deny the possible existence of hereditary disease," he
continues. "In all ages of the world, and among every complexion of men,
the opinion has been corroborated by fact. But what forbids our hoping
better things in the case before us? Who will have the temerity to aver
on oath that His Majesty's complaint is not the _Gout_, or some kindred
disorder, unhappily driven to the seat of intelligence?" Withers has
related how, about this time, the King and Queen, with himself in
attendance, were driving one day through Windsor Park, when the King
stopped the horses, and, crying, "There he is," alighted. His Majesty
then approached an oak, and when within a few yards of it, uncovered and
advanced, bowing with the utmost respect, and then, seizing one of the
lower branches, shook it heartily, as one shakes the hand of a friend.
The Queen turned pale and after a terrified pause told Withers to
dismount and tell the King that her Majesty desired his company. From
the words that were uttered, the page learnt that George imagined he was
discussing European politics with the King of Prussia!
[244] _History of the Royal Malady, with Variety of Entertaining
Anecdotes, to which are added Strictures of the Declaration of Horne
Tooke, Esq., respecting "Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales,"
commonly called Mrs. Fitzherbert. With Interesting Remarks on a Regency.
By a Page of the Presence._ (1789.)
The narrative of the illness of George III is headed, presumedly to
evade prosecution, "Curious and Entertaining Anecdotes of Henry IV, King
of France."
After this distressing episode, there ensued a period of fluctuation,
when occasional paroxysms were succeeded by intervals of clear
understanding, during which everybody at Windsor went about in fear and
trembling, not knowing what would happen next. The Queen was almost
overpowered with terror. "I am affected beyond all expression in her
presence to see what struggles she makes to support her serenity," Miss
Burney wrote on November 3. "To-day she gave up the conflict when I was
alone with her, and burst into a violent fit of tears. It was very, very
terrible to see."[245] At this critical moment Sir George Baker was far
from well, and, feeling unable to undertake the entire charge of the
royal invalid, and perhaps disinclined to take upon himself the entire
responsibility, called in Dr. Warren, whom, however, the King declined
to receive. "Dr. Warren was then placed where he could hear his voice,
and all that passed, and receive intelligence concerning his pulse,
etc., from Sir George Baker."[246]
[245] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
[246] _Ibid._
Dr. Warren came to the conclusion that the disorder under which the King
laboured was an absolute mania, and wholly unconnected with fever, which
statement of the case he had later to announce to the sufferer. On
November 5, the King broke out in violent delirium at dinner, flew at
the Prince of Wales, clutched him by the throat, and threw him against a
wall, crying, he would know how to dare keep the King of England from
speaking his mind. That night George was hopelessly mad; his physical as
well as his mental health was impaired, and his life despaired of. "The
doctors say it is impossible to survive it long, if his situation does
not take some extraordinary change in a few hours," Sheridan was
informed. "Since this letter was begun, all articulation even seems to
be at an end with the poor King; but, for the two hours preceding, he
was in a most determined frenzy."[247] After a time he slept, and when
he awoke the fever had somewhat abated, but he had still all the
gestures and ravings of the most confirmed maniac, and a new noise in
imitation of the howling of a dog. Then he became calmer and talked of
religion, and declared himself inspired, but soon relapsed into a
turbulent and incoherent state, and tried to jump out of a window.[248]
On November 9 a rumour ran through the city that the King was dead, but
on the 12th orders were sent to the office of the Secretary of State
that it should be notified to foreign courts that no apprehensions were
entertained of immediate danger of the King's life. On November 16 a
public prayer was offered in all churches for his recovery.
[247] Moore: _Life of Sheridan_.
[248] Dr. Ray: _The Insanity of King George III_.
The physicians in attendance had been divided upon the question of the
possibility of the King's physical recovery, but they were in agreement
as to the unlikelihood of his regaining his reason. The first ray of
hope came on November 19 from Sir Lucas Pepys, who declared that there
was "nothing desponding in the case," but advised stronger measures,
the denial of dangerous indulgences, and greater quiet. In spite of this
pronouncement, on the following day Dr. Warren had the unpleasant task
to inform the King he was regarded as incapable of transacting business
of any kind. "To-day, I have heard, is fixed upon to speak reason to One
who has none," George Selwyn wrote to Lady Carlisle on November 20. "Dr.
Warren, in some set of fine phrases, is to tell his Majesty that he is
stark mad, and must have a straight waistcoat. I am glad I am not chosen
to be that Rat who is to put the bell about the Cat's neck. For if it
should please God to forgive our transgressions, and restore his Majesty
to his senses, for he can never have them again till we grow better, I
suppose, according to the opinion of churchmen, who are perfectly
acquainted with all the dispensations of Providence, and the motive of
His conduct; I say, if that unexpected period arrives, I should not like
to stand in the place of that man who has moved such an Address to the
Crown."[249]
[249] _George Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
The favourable opinion of Sir Lucas Pepys was confirmed by Dr.
Addington, who, called in on November 26, was the only physician of all
those consulted who had experience of mental cases, and even he was not
professedly a practitioner in them. For some reason Dr. Addington
discontinued his attendance after a few days, and then at last it was
deemed imperative to add to the medical staff some one skilled in the
treatment of insanity. Why this had not been done before is inexplicable
except on the hypothesis that secrecy was essential in the public
interest;[250] but now a summons was sent to the Rev. Dr. Francis
Willis.
[250] "It was found impossible, however, to divert public attention from
the lengthy confinement of the King in 1788, and in November the Queen
was greatly offended by some anecdote relative to the indisposition
which appeared in _The Morning Herald_, and after instructing Miss
Burney to burn the paper, she sought for some one who should represent
to the editor that 'he must answer at his peril any further such
treasonable paragraphs.'"--_The Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
It was decided, further, for the sake of greater quiet, to move the King
to Kew, but at first this seemed impossible unless violence were used,
for he resolutely refused to leave Windsor. Eventually the object was
achieved by strategy. "The poor Queen was to get off in private: the
plan settled between the princes and physicians was, that her Majesty
and the princesses should go away quietly, and then that the King should
be told that they were gone, which was the sole method they could devise
to prevail with him to follow. He was then to be allured by a promise
of seeing them at Kew; and, as they knew he would doubt their assertion,
he was to go through the rooms and examine the house himself."[251] This
was done on November 29, and the King established himself at Kew in the
ground floor rooms that look towards the garden. The bribe was not paid,
however, and the anger it aroused in him produced the worst results.
Indeed, his separation from the Queen was in his lucid hours one of his
greatest troubles. "She is my best friend; where could I find another?"
he asked on one occasion; and at another time complained bitterly, "I am
eight-and-twenty years married, and now have no wife at all; is not that
hard?"
[251] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
Dr. Willis was the incumbent of a Lincolnshire living, and, having taken
a medical degree at Oxford, he frequently acted as physician to his
parishioners. He was especially successful in treating mental cases, and
when this became known, so many persons from all parts of England came
to him that at last he founded an asylum at Gretford, where, it is said,
he never at any time had less than thirty cases under his care.[252]
When Willis took up his quarters at Kew on December 6, the King asked
him if he, who was a clergyman, was not ashamed of himself for
exercising such a profession, "Sir," said the specialist, "our Saviour
Himself went about healing the sick." "Yes," retorted George, "but He
had not £700 for it."[253] Willis, who was at this time seventy years of
age, seems to have won golden opinions at Court, except from some of his
colleagues who inclined to regard his methods as more in place with the
quack than with the qualified practitioner. "In the practical knowledge
of insanity, and the management of the insane, Willis was unquestionably
in advance of his associates," Dr. Ray has written, "but following the
bent of his dictatorial habits, he often spoke without meaning his
words, and often overstepped the limits of professional etiquette."[254]
Miss Burney thought him "a man in ten thousand, open, honest, dauntless,
lighthearted, innocent, and high-minded;" "an upright, worthy man,
gentle and humane in his profession, and amiable and pious as a
clergyman," said Mrs. Papendiek; while Wraxall thought Willis "seemed to
be exempt from all the infirmities of old age, and his countenance,
which was very interesting, blended intelligence with an expression of
placid self-possession."[255]
[252] "Gretford and its vicinity at that time exhibited one of the most
peculiar and singular sights I ever witnessed. As the unprepared
traveller approached the town he was astonished to find almost all the
surrounding ploughmen, gardeners, threshers, thatchers and other
labourers attired in black coats, white waistcoats, black silk breeches
and stockings, and the head of each '_bien poudre, frise, et arrange_.'
These were the Doctor's patients; and dress, neatness of person, and
exercise being the principal features of his admirable system, health
and cheerfulness conjoined to aid the recovery of every person attached
to that most valuable asylum. The Doctor kept an excellent table, and
the day I dined with him I found a numerous company. Nothing occurred
out of the common way till soon after the cloth was removed, when I saw
the Doctor frown at a patient who immediately hastened from the room,
taking with him my _tail_, which he had slyly cut off."--_Life and Times
of Frederick Reynolds._
[253] _Diary and Correspondence of the first Earl of Malmesbury._
[254] _The Insanity of George III._
[255] _Historical Memoirs of his Own Times._
Pitt introduced the physician to the King: "We have found a gentleman
who has made the illness under which your Majesty is now labouring his
study for some years, and we doubt not that he can render comfort, and
alleviate many of the inconveniences your Majesty suffers." "Will he let
me shave myself, cut my nails, and have a knife at breakfast and
dinner?" asked the King who resented the precautions that had been
taken; "and will he treat me as his sovereign, and not command me as a
subject?" "Sir, I am a plain man, not used to courts, but I honour and
respect my King;" and he won George's confidence by letting him
forthwith shave himself. Willis watched the King for twenty-four hours,
and then expressed his opinion that "the malady had been too long
suffered to remain, but that if the constitution could bear the remedies
necessary to work out the disease, he had no fear for a cure."[256]
[256] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
"In the consultation which settled the respective functions", Dr. Ray
has stated, "Willis was to have charge of all the domestic and strictly
moral management--in accordance, however, with such general views as had
been agreed upon. The medical treatment was arranged in the morning
consultations, and it was understood that Willis was to take no decisive
measure, either medical or moral, not previously discussed and
permitted. Pepys, Gisborne and Reynolds attended, in rotation, from four
o'clock in the afternoon until eleven the next morning. Warren or Baker
visited in the morning, saw the King, consulted with Willis and the
physicians, who had remained over night, and agreed with them upon the
bulletin for the day. Willis was soon joined by his son John, whose
particular function seems not to have been very definitely settled.
Willis professed to regard him as equal to himself in point of dignity
and responsibility, but his colleagues considered him merely as an
assistant to his father. Two surgeons and two apothecaries were also
retained, each one, in turn, staying twenty-four hours in the palace.
The personal service was rendered by three attendants whom Willis had
procured from his own establishment, and the King's pages--one attendant
and one page being constantly in his room."[257]
[257] Dr. Ray: _The Insanity of King George III_.
It would be out of place in this work to enter into the details of
Willis's treatment, but it may be stated that for the mode of restraint
used before he came on the scene, he employed one that, while exercising
a more firm coercion, was not so teasing to the patient. It has been
told how when the King, convalescent, was walking through a corridor at
Kew with one of his equerries, he saw a straight-jacket lying in a
chair, "You need not be afraid to look at it," he said to his companion,
who, somewhat embarrassed, had averted his eyes, "Perhaps it is the best
friend I ever had in my life." Willis did not, however, rely entirely
upon coercion, as did most of the physicians of that day in cases of
insanity; but endeavoured by kindness to establish a hold upon the King.
"Willis has, I understand, already acquired a complete ascendency over
him," William Grenville wrote a couple of days after the mad-doctor took
charge, "which is the point for which he is particularly famous."[258]
Sheridan, too, remarked, in one of his speeches that Willis professed to
have the gift of seeing the heart by looking at the countenance, and,
with a touch of delicious humour, added, looking at Pitt, that this
simple statement seemed to alarm the right honourable gentleman.
[258] Duke of Buckingham: _Court and Cabinets of George III_.
CHAPTER XXII
THE KING'S RECOVERY
When it could no longer be doubted that George was incapable of
transacting business, ministers were confronted with the very difficult
problem: how was the King's Government to be carried on? and their
trouble was the greater because it could not be said with any certainty
whether the disorder was temporary or whether it was likely to be
permanent. If there was the chance of a speedy cure, then, of course,
nothing need be done; but if, on the other hand, recovery was
impossible, or, at best, a matter of many months, then some step must be
taken, and that that step must be a regency and that in the first
instance the office must be proffered to the Prince of Wales was patent
to all. This was very distasteful to Pitt and his colleagues for they
saw clearly that the passing of a Regency Bill would in all probability
be the signal for their dismissal, since the Prince was an ally of the
Whigs and the bosom friend of Fox and Sheridan, and they saw it was
their interest to delay as long as possible the introduction of such a
measure.
[Illustration: _From an engraving by W. Tomkins_
GEORGE III
_To face p. 222, Vol II_]
In July, Parliament had been prorogued to November 20, and when it
met on that day, Pitt, after explaining the situation, secured an
adjournment to December 4, in order that an examination of the
physicians might be made by Privy Council. In the interval Dr. Warren
told him that "the physicians could now have no hesitation in
pronouncing that the actual disorder was that of lunacy; that no man
could pretend to say that this was or was not curable, that he saw no
immediate symptoms of recovery; that the King might never recover; and,
on the other hand, that he might recover at any one moment." After this
official pronouncement delay was no longer possible, and when the House
reassembled on December 4, Pitt stated he had taken steps to ascertain
the exact condition of the King, moved for the report of the examination
of the physicians, which had been held before the Privy Council on the
previous day, and proposed that it should be taken into consideration on
the following Monday.
To each physician the same questions had been put: Do you think his
Majesty's present disorder incapacitates him for public business? Do you
think his Majesty's disorder a curable or incurable malady? Can you take
upon you to say in what time the malady may be removed? Each physician
replied that the King was quite incapable of transacting business, and
that, although the malady was curable, it was impossible to say when the
disorder might be removed.
On the Monday when the report was to be taken into consideration,
however, the general sense of the House seemed to be that in a matter of
such magnitude it was advisable that the House itself should examine the
physicians, and this was thought the more desirable because since the
examination of the Privy Council Dr. Willis and Dr. Gisborne had been
called in. A committee of twenty-one members was appointed on December 8
to hear the doctors' opinions, which were naturally identical with their
previous pronouncements, with which Willis agreed, except that he was
emphatic in his conviction of the speedy recovery of the King; and two
days later the Committee made its report to the House. It is not
necessary to go into the details of the struggle between the Government
and the Opposition: how Pitt proposed a committee to report on
precedents of measures to carry on the government when the personal
exercise of the royal authority had been prevented by infancy, sickness,
infirmity, or other causes: and how Fox interrupted the harmony of the
proceedings by asserting the _right_ of the Prince of Wales to the
regency. It may be pointed out that there was something behind this
bold assertion, for, since the heir-apparent was the natural selection
for the office, Fox would scarcely otherwise have raised the point. It
was indeed a foregone conclusion that the Prince would be regent, but
the point at issue was whether the regency should be restricted or
unrestricted. Pitt, left to himself, would undoubtedly impose
conditions, but if Fox could impress the House with the belief that the
Prince had the right to the office, then the regency would doubtless be
unfettered. It has usually been assumed when Fox put forward his view he
made a blunder--and if we regard it as a blunder, it was a very bad one;
but is it not more likely that the _right_ was claimed, merely as a
tactical move in the parliamentary warfare? It had the great advantage
that the party advancing the theory could lose nothing by it, for the
Prince must be offered the regency, while if the bluff were successful,
the regency would be unrestricted.
However this may have been, Fox's attempt raised a tremendous outcry,
and the Prince (among whose qualities loyalty was not included)
instructed the Duke of York to say in the House of Lords that, "His
Royal Highness understands too well the sacred principles which seated
the House of Brunswick on the throne of Great Britain, ever to assume or
exercise any power, _be his claim what it may_, not derived from _the
will of the people_, expressed by their representatives and your
lordships in Parliament assembled."
Pitt now introduced resolutions for a restricted regency, and these, in
spite of violent protests in both chambers,[259] were finally agreed to
on December 30, when they were submitted to the Prince of Wales. The
Prince had repeatedly stated he would under no circumstances accept the
office if the exercise of power was hampered with restrictions. Such
conditions, which were only to endure for a limited time, were, however,
regarded as essential in the interest of the King should he recover, and
ministers would not give way. Indeed, the Prince's threats were
regarded, we have been told by a contemporary, "as nothing more than a
bully intended to influence votes in the House of Commons. If, however,
he should be so desperate, I should hope that there would be every
reason to believe the Queen would be induced to take the regency in
order to prevent the King's hands being fettered for the remainder of
his life."[260] In the end, as every one expected, the Prince yielded
under protest, whereupon Pitt at once introduced a Regency Bill, which,
after a most acrimonious struggle, passed the Commons on February 12,
and was carried to the House of Lords.
[259] "Edmund Burke arose a little after four and is speaking yet. He
has been wilder than ever, and laid himself and party open more than
ever speaker did. He is folly personified, but shaking his cap and bells
under the laurel of genius.... He finished his wild speech in a manner
next to madness," so Sir W. Young wrote to Lord Buckingham; and, indeed,
throughout the debates Burke, as Pitt put it scathingly, "displayed a
warmth that seemed to have arisen from his entertaining wishes different
from the rest of the House."
[260] Duke of Buckingham: _Courts and Cabinets of George III_.
In the meantime the King's condition had been gradually improving. At a
further examination of the physicians on January 7, although Dr. Warren
and Sir George Baker were far from confident, Willis considered recovery
certain. "A little more time is all I ask," said the latter. "Even as
days go on I do not despair."[261] Willis stated that whereas a
fortnight earlier, his Majesty would take up books but could not read a
line of them, now he could peruse several pages and make sensible
remarks upon the subject, that he was less excited and less frequently
required restraint, and "in the main his Majesty does everything in a
more rational way than he did, and some things extremely rational."[262]
[261] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
[262] Ray: _The Insanity of King George III_.
George's senses were certainly returning to him. One day he desired to
have £400 from his Privy Purse, and this he divided into different sums,
and wrapped them up in separate papers upon which he wrote the names of
persons to whom he was accustomed to make monthly payments. He then
wrote down the different sums, and the names, added them up, as had been
his custom, and ordered the money to be paid immediately as it was then
due.[263] Another incident that occurred at this time was subsequently
related by the Princess Royal. Dr. Willis had refused to let George read
"King Lear," but the patient outwitted the doctor by asking for Colman's
works, in which he knew he would find the play as altered by Colman for
the stage. When the three elder Princesses went in to the King, he told
them what he had been reading. He said, "It is very beautiful, very
affecting, and very awful," adding, "I am like poor Lear, but thank God,
I have no Regan, no Goneril, but three Cordelias."[264]
[263] _Georgiana._
[264] _Diaries of a Lady of Quality._ Edited by Abraham Hayward.
The King's recovery was proceeding apace, but when Dr. Willis was
inclined to believe the disorder had all but passed, a new obsession
arose. George had long been attracted by the stately beauty of Lady
Pembroke,[265] and now he fancied himself divorced from the Queen, whom
he called the Queen Dowager, and the other Queen Elizabeth, and said
between them he was pulled to pieces, and then what was to become of
poor Pill Garlick.[266] "His Majesty could not be prevailed upon, indeed
he absolutely refused, to see the Queen!" Mrs. Papendiek noted. "He said
that he had always respected her and had paid her every attention, but
when she should have screened his malady from the public she had
deserted him to the care of those who had used him ill, insomuch as they
had forgotten him to be their sovereign; that he had always felt a great
partiality for Queen Elizabeth, and with her, upon a proper agreement,
he would end his days."[267] However, this delusion began to give way,
and soon he consented to receive the Queen daily, "if she has no
objection to see me in the abject state in which I must appear before
her," he said pathetically; but he was not yet cured, and still rambled
and had a slight return of fever. Gradually, however, his strength
returned, and by slow degrees he was led to resume his former habits. On
February 14 Miss Burney stated triumphantly, "The King is infinitely
better," and four days later she gave vent to a pæan of joy: "This was a
sweet, and will prove a memorable day: the Regency was put off in the
House of Lords, by a motion from the Chancellor. Huzza! Huzza! And this
evening, for the first time, the King came upstairs, to drink tea with
the Queen and Princesses in the drawing-room! My heart was so full of
joy and thankfulness, I could hardly breathe! Heaven--Heaven be praised!
What a different house is this house become!--sadness and terror, that
wholly occupied it so lately, are now flown away, or rather are now
driven out; and though anxiety still forcibly prevails, 'tis in so small
a proportion to joy and thankfulness, that it is borne as if scarce an
ill!"[268]
[265] Elizabeth, Countess of Pembroke, daughter of Charles, second Duke
of Marlborough.
[266] _Reminiscences of the fifth Earl of Carlisle._
[267] _Court and Private Life._
[268] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
There was, indeed, no doubt that George was nearly well. On February 14,
Henry Addington wrote to his father that "Dr. Warren particularly
observes that the appearance of the King's eyes is vastly improved; and
his pulse is certainly reduced from 100 to 62 in a minute. The last is
the rate of it when in health. It is now generally believed that no
change of Government will take place at present;"[269] and three days
later Dr. Willis told the Lord Chancellor that the Regency bill ought
not to be proceeded with as the King's disorder was practically removed.
This Lord Thurlow declined at first to believe, but when the doctor
threatened that if his statement was disregarded, he would publish the
news of the King's recovery, Thurlow consented to visit the King and
judge for himself. "No politics," said the King, when he consented to
receive the minister; "my head is not strong enough for that
subject."[270] The interview convinced Lord Thurlow that Willis was
right, and two days later he rose in the House of Lords to announce a
great improvement in the monarch's condition, and adjourned the debate
for a week, when the consideration of the bill was not resumed.
[269] Pellew: _Life of Lord Sidmouth_.
[270] _Auckland Correspondence._
On the 20th Lord Thurlow again visited the King, and this time gave him
an outline of events that had transpired during his illness. "I never
saw at any period, the King more composed, collected, or distinct," the
Chancellor told Pitt, "and there was not the slightest trace or
appearance of disorder." Three days later the King received the Prince
of Wales and the Duke of York, who had repeatedly demanded an interview.
"The Queen," Sir Gilbert Elliot has related, "was present, and walking
to and fro in the room with a countenance and manner of great
dissatisfaction; and the King every now and then went to her in a
submissive manner and spoke in a soothing sort of tone, for she has
acquired the same sort of drilling over him that Willis and his men
have--and the King's mind is totally subdued and in a state of the
greatest weakness and subjection. It is given out even by the King's
friends that they observed nothing _wrong_ or irrational in this visit,
and it is material that they should not be thought to publish the
contrary. It is not entirely true, however, as the King made several
slips, one of which was that he told them he was the Chancellor. This
circumstance is not to be mentioned for the reasons just given."[271]
After seeing his sons the King wrote to the Prime Minister for the first
time since he had been taken ill.
[271] Lady Minto: _Life of Sir Gilbert Elliot_.
"It is with infinite satisfaction that I renew my correspondence with
Mr. Pitt by acquainting him with my having seen the Prince of Wales and
my second son. Care was taken that the conversation should be general
and cordial. They seemed perfectly satisfied. I chose the meeting should
be in the Queen's apartment, that all parties might have that caution,
which, at the present hour could but be judicious.
"I desire Mr. Pitt will confer with the Lord Chancellor, that any steps
which may be necessary for raising the annual supplies or any measures
that the interests of the nation may require, should not be
unnecessarily delayed, for I feel the warmest gratitude for the support
and anxiety shown by the nation at large during my tedious illness,
which I should ill requite if I did not wish to prevent any further
delay in those public measures which it may be necessary to bring
forward this year; though I must decline entering into a pressure of
business, and, indeed, for the rest of my life, shall expect others to
fulfil the duties of their employments, and only keep that
superintending eye which can be effected without labour or fatigue."
The last bulletin, signed by Dr. Willis, Sir George Baker, and Sir Lucas
Pepys, and announcing "the entire cessation of his Majesty's illness"
appeared on February 26; and on March 2 an order was issued by the Privy
Council to discontinue the form of prayer for the recovery of his
Majesty's health, and substitute a prayer of thanksgiving. On March 7
the Speaker of the House of Commons and several members of the
Administration saw the King when "it was observed by all that his
Majesty never appeared more healthy, easy, and cheerful, within their
recollection[272];" and on the 10th the Speech from the Throne,
delivered by commission, stated that the King had resumed his authority,
and that day was given up to rejoicing. "London displayed a blaze of
light from one extremity to the other; the illuminations extending,
without any metaphor, from Hampstead and Highgate to Clapham, and even
as far as Tooting; while the vast distance between Greenwich and
Kensington presented the same dazzling appearance. The poorest mechanics
contributed their proportion, and instances were exhibited of cobblers'
stalls decorated with one or two farthing candles."[273]
[272] Pellew: _Life of Lord Sidmouth_.
[273] Wraxall: _Posthumous Memoirs of His Own Times_.
"Our prayers are heard, and Providence restores
A Patriot King to bless Britannia's shores!
Nor yet to Britain is this bliss confined,
All Europe hails the friend of human kind.
If, such the general joys, what words can show
The change to transport from the depths of woe
In those permitted to embrace again.
The best of Fathers, Husbands, and of men."[274]
[274] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
On March 11 George received an Address of the Lords and Commons on his
recovery, on the 13th the congratulations of the _corps diplomatique_,
and on the next day went to Windsor, when "All Windsor came out to meet
the King. It was a joy amounting to ecstasy. I could not keep my eyes
dry all day long. A scene so reversed--sadness so sweetly exchanged for
thankfulness and delight!"[275] Everywhere there was rejoicing,
Ambassadors and Ministers gave banquets to celebrate the occasion, and
there were fêtes at Court and balls at the clubs.[276] The dislike of
the populace to the King had disappeared entirely, and their hearts had
gone out to him in his time of trouble. Sir Lucas Pepys told Miss Burney
that if George died the lives of himself and his colleagues would be in
danger, for they received threatening letters daily. Sir George Baker
was stopped by the mob, and when in reply to an inquiry he answered,
"The case is a bad one," "The more shame for you," came angry cries from
all sides. But the greatest outburst of enthusiasm was on St. George's
Day (April 23), when the King went in state to St. Paul's "to return
thanks to God for His mercy in giving the King his health and reason
once more." The physicians and others, fearful of the possible effects
of the excitement, endeavoured to dissuade the King from participating
in this public ceremony, but in vain, "My Lord," said George to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, "I have twice read over the evidence of the
physicians on my case, and if I can stand that, I can stand anything."
[275] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
[276] "The ladies at White's Club are to be dressed in white and gold.
On the front of their caps they are to have a motto 'God save the King'
in gold letters. The Prince and Duke of York were offered tickets, which
they refused, but desired to subscribe. This was agreed to, but
they are not to come. The Opposition ladies follow the example,
but decline coming to the ball, but there will probably be some
exceptions."--_Cornwallis Papers._
[Illustration: _From an old print_
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND IN 1787
_To face p. 237, Vol. II_]
CHAPTER XXIII
THE KING'S CHILDREN
The trouble that George III experienced through the misdemeanours of his
brothers and the misfortunes of his sisters was as nothing compared to
the anxiety caused him by his children[277] and notably by his sons.
Yet, bad as was the behaviour of the latter, they might well plead
extenuating circumstances in the shape of their mother and father. The
King could never profit by experience, and he learnt nothing from the
evil results that accrued from the harsh methods employed in the
nurseries of the Princess dowager, with the result that, bringing up his
children on the same lines, he not unnaturally produced similar
effects. The Queen, too, having none of those qualities that promote
happiness in a family and tend to unite it in harmony, was not more
successful as a mother than her consort as a father. "It is not
surprising, therefore, that the younger members of the family longed for
the day when they should be emancipated from the sober state and grim
decorum of the palace. The princes rushed into the brilliant world of
pleasure and excitement which awaited them with headlong impetuosity;
but the less fortunate princesses were doomed to repine in their dreary
captivity, longing for marriage, as the only event which could release
them."[278]
[277] George III had fifteen children by his wife: George, Prince of
Wales (1762-1830); Frederick, Duke of York (1763-1827); William, Duke of
Clarence (1765-1837); Edward, Duke of Kent (1767-1820); Ernest, Duke of
Cumberland and King of Hanover (1771-1851); Augustus, Duke of Sussex
(1773-1843); Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850); Octavius
(1779-1783); Alfred (1780-1782); Charlotte, afterwards Queen of
Würtemburg (1766-1828); Augusta (1768-1840); Elizabeth, afterwards
Landgravine of Hesse-Homburg (1770-1840); Mary, afterwards Duchess of
Gloucester (1776-1857); Sophia (1777-1848); Amelia (1783-1810).
[278] Massey: _History of England_.
Yet George was fond of his children, especially when they were young. He
interested himself in their education and their pursuits; and it has
been related how when he was talking with a Scotch lady about Scotland,
and suddenly became absorbed in thought, "Your Majesty, I presume, is
thinking about my country," said his companion. "I was entreating God,"
he replied, "to protect and bless my dear boys."
The daughters gave little trouble, except the Princess Royal, who,
according to Mrs. Papendiek, rather set herself against the Queen. "She
was incensed at her mother constantly inviting to Windsor the daughters
of such families as were attached to the Government party, saying that
they could not amuse the King, but only ran idly about the house,
interrupting everybody; and she desired her Lady-in-waiting to say that
she never received any one in the morning. Her Royal Highness now
averred that she had never liked the Queen, from her excessive severity,
that she had doubted her judgment on many points, and went so far as to
say that she was a silly woman."[279] The hand of the Princess Charlotte
was sought in 1796 by the Crown Prince of Würtemburg; but some delay
occurred before a definite acceptance of the offer was made, as there
was some mystery concerning the fate of the Crown Prince's first wife.
After inquiries, however, George III expressed himself satisfied with
the explanations tendered to him, and in the following year the marriage
took place. The account of her farewell interview with her father shows
that at least the Princess's objection to one parent did not extend to
the other. "The last interview between his Majesty and his royal
daughter was of the most affecting kind. The Princess hung upon her
father's neck, overwhelmed in grief, and it was not until her consort
urged her to close the painful scene, that she could be prevailed upon
to leave her father. The affectionate parent followed her to bid her
farewell, but he was so overcome by the excess of his parental feelings,
that he could not give utterance to his words, and his streaming eyes
looked the last blessing, which his lips could not pronounce." With her
departure from England in May, 1797, this Princess passes out of English
history.
[279] _Court and Private Life._
There was little desire expressed by foreign Princes for an alliance
with the daughters of George III, and this reluctance to marry members
of the English Royal family must be attributed mainly to the knowledge
of European sovereigns and their families of the malady from which the
King suffered. Prince Ferdinand of Würtemburg, who was in the Austrian
army and had distinguished himself in the taking of Belgrade from the
Turks, came over in 1791 to propose a marriage with Princess Augusta,
then, to quote Mrs. Papendiek, "certainly the most beautiful creature
one could wish to see;" but the King refused his suit, partly because he
was "two removes from the Dukedom," and partly because he would not let
the younger Princesses marry before the elder.[280] Subsequently Louis
Phillippe became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, but he jilted her for
Marie Amélie, daughter of the King of Naples; and after this it looked
as if all the royal ladies would become old maids. Princess Amelia
escaped this fate by contracting a morganatic alliance with General
Fitzroy;[281] and at the age of fifty Princess Mary married William
Frederick, Duke of Gloucester, who had been held in reserve for Princess
Charlotte of Wales in case no other alliance offered.
[280] Mrs. Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
[281] _See supra_, vol. ii, p. 282.
Princess Augusta and Princess Sophia remained single; but, when she was
forty-eight, Princess Elizabeth conceived a passion for matrimony. Not
without difficulty a _parti_ was found for the mature lady, and on April
8, 1818, she was united to the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, who,
according to all accounts, had an objectionable appearance and a
ridiculous manner. "A monster of a man, a vulgar-looking German
corporal, whose breath is a compound between tobacco and garlic; he has
about £300 _per annum_," so Fremantle described him; but these defects
did not deter the middle-aged spinster. "The Princess of Hesse-Homburg
will redeem the character of good behaviour in the conjugal bonds, lost
or mislaid by her family," wrote Mrs. Trench. "She is delighted with her
_hero_, as she calls him. On his way from the scene of the marriage
ceremony to the Regent's Cottage, where, to his great annoyance, they
were destined to pass the first quarter of the honeymoon, he was sick,
from being unused to a close carriage, and forced to leave her for the
dickey, and put Baron O'Naghten in his place. He said he was not so much
_ennuyé_ at the Cottage as he expected, having passed all his time in
his dressing-gown and slippers smoking in the conservatory."[282] The
Landgrave was, indeed, a good man, kind-hearted, fond of books, and with
more learning than the majority of minor German princes, and he
certainly made his wife very happy. "I have so very many things to be
thankful for that I ever feel I cannot do too much to prove my feelings
both towards God and my excellent husband," the Landgravine wrote to
Lady Harcourt on January 21, 1821. "Though I lived in a degree of
magnificence and splendour whilst with my sister, I can with truth say
that I was thoroughly happy to see my own dear little Homburg again."
This, curiously enough, was the only happy marriage contracted by a
child of George III.
[282] Quoted in Fitzgerald's _Family of George III_.
"If anything can make a democracy in England, it will be the royal
family,"[283] wrote Lord Minto, and no one may quarrel with this
statement, nor with the lines of Shelley, in which the ruling caste in
1819 is described:
"An old, mad, blind, despised and dying King,
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn, mud from a muddy spring."
[283] _Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot._
All the sons of George III were more or less wild, and all of them
without exception were a source of trouble to their mother and father.
Of those seven who grew up the two that caused least anxiety to their
parents were Augustus, Duke of Sussex, and Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge;
the latter led a quiet life in England until 1816, when he was appointed
Governor of Hanover, and while there married Wilhelmina Louisa, daughter
of Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, by whom he had three children.
The former differed from all his brothers in so far that he had a taste
for literature, and an affection for books. At the age of twenty he
married Lady Augusta Murray and though the marriage, being contracted in
defiance of the provisions of the Royal Marriage Act, was declared null
and void, he did not during her lifetime contract another matrimonial
alliance. After her death, however, he married Lady Cecilia Buggins
(_née_ Underwood), who was subsequently created by Queen Victoria
Duchess of Inverness in her own right. The Duke was of a retiring
disposition, and, being happy in the library he had formed in his
apartments in Kensington Palace, took no part in the political and very
little share in the social life of his day.
The Duke of Clarence did not come into open conflict with the King and
Queen, and his life was uneventful, with the exception of his connection
with Dora Jordan and his marriage in 1818 with Adelaide, eldest daughter
of the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen. The Duke of Kent, too, interested himself
but little in public affairs, and lived abroad for many years with
Madame St. Laurent, by whom he had twelve children. He was devoted to
this lady, and was fearful lest, to assure the succession, he should be
compelled to marry. Notwithstanding, he expressed his intention to do so
if it should be necessary, though, he said, "God only knows the
sacrifice it will be to make whenever I shall think it my duty to become
a married man." Eventually he married the widow of Charles Louis, Prince
of Leiningen, by whom he had issue, one daughter, Victoria.
Though George III was not on friendly terms with any of his sons, and
was careful to keep them, so far as possible, out of England, it was his
remaining children that caused him the most serious unhappiness. The
Prince of Wales, Frederick, Duke of York, and Ernest, Duke of
Cumberland, were so many thorns in the flesh.
The conduct of the Prince of Wales need here only be referred to, _en
passant_,[284] his behaviour from first to last was marked by no degree
of affection or respect for his parents, or, indeed, by any
consideration of decency. From an early age, encouraged by his uncle and
aunt, the Duke and Duchess of Cumberland, he plunged into debauchery of
every kind. While still in his teens, his _liaisons_ were notorious, his
losses at the cardtable considerable, and his extravagance gigantic.
When he came of age he threw himself into the arms of the Opposition,
and soon was at open enmity with his father. What might have happened if
George III had been a wise parent, or even possessed of ordinary
commonsense, cannot be said, but his methods of strict repression and
his want of sympathetic insight alienated his boys one by one. Even into
the Journal of Mrs. Papendiek, that undiscriminating eulogiser of the
King and Queen, has crept one example of the gracelessness of the
monarch, when, after his illness, wine had been recommended to him in
very small quantities to assist digestion. "As his Majesty had never
taken it he doubted its efficacy. The Prince of Wales sent a few bottles
of the finest Madeira, so he said, that the island had ever produced,
and proposed tasting it with the King when the family dined at four
o'clock. The King thanked his Royal Highness, but said he hoped for the
credit of his gentlemen of the wine cellar, and for the pleasure of
those who partook of such indulgences, that the best was always
provided. For himself it would be his last treat, as he was sure it did
him more harm than good."[285]
[284] The present writer has given a detailed sketch of the life of the
Prince of Wales in _The First Gentleman of Europe_.
[285] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
For a long time the Prince of Wales was his mother's darling, and Miss
Burney has related how in 1786, "the Queen read him that paper from 'The
Tatler' which gives an account of a young man of good heart and sweet
disposition, who is allured by pleasure into a libertine life, which he
pursues by habit, but with constant remorse and ceaseless shame and
unhappiness." "It was impossible for me to miss her object," Miss Burney
commented; "all the mother was in her voice while she read it, and her
glistening eyes told the application made throughout."[286] But the
heir-apparent had neither remorse nor shame, and his conduct wore down
the love of his mother, as in course of time it dissipated the
affection of everyone but Mrs. Fitzherbert, to whom he behaved as
disgracefully as man may behave to woman. The Queen bore with much
neglect, but even she could not pardon her dearest son's conduct when
his father was suffering from the mental malady that broke out in 1788.
Then the Prince, like the graceless heir he was, cared for nothing save
to secure the royal power. He took the government of the Castle into his
own hands and intrigued openly for an unrestricted Regency; but what
affected the Queen, always jealous of her authority, was that he
promptly delegated her to a second place. When Dr. Warren made his
report, not to the Queen, but to the Prince of Wales, she was much
upset. "I think a deeper blow I have never witnessed," Miss Burney
remarked. "Already to become but second, even for the King! The tears
were not wiped; indignation arose, with pain, the severest pain, of
every species."[287] This hit her in her tenderest spot, her dignity was
assailed, and henceforth, with brief intervals of peace following on
reconciliations, she fought tooth and nail against her eldest son. In
the eyes of George III his son's profligate conduct and his extravagance
were terrible, but these were as trifles compared to his publication of
the King's letters in 1803 after a dispute as to the heir-apparent's
right to a military command. When a nobleman was complaining to the King
of his heir's disgraceful conduct, "Yes," said the poor old man, "_but
he has never published your letters_!"
[286] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
[287] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
The Duke of York followed in the footsteps of his elder brother, and
with as good a will gambled and indulged in dissipation, a course he did
not abandon after his marriage with Frederica, the eldest daughter of
Frederick William II of Prussia. Sent on active service to the
Netherlands, he was unsuccessful in the field, and was recalled by Pitt,
much to the anger of the King,[288] who, on his return to England
appointed him Commander-in-Chief, in which capacity he proved himself a
capable administrator. The scandal occasioned by the sale of commissions
by his mistress, Mrs. Mary Ann Clarke,[289] caused him to resign, but,
after an interval, he was reinstated, and held the post until his death.
He was his father's favourite son, but he found the Court so dull that
he seldom stayed under the parental roof; but, though he was not a good
son, he was a weak rather than a bad man, and had many amiable qualities
that endeared him to a large circle of friends.
[288]
"WINDSOR, _November 24, 1794_.
"Mr. Pitt cannot be surprised at my being very much hurt at the
contents of his letter. Indeed, he seems to expect it, but I am
certain that nothing but the thinking it his duty could have
instigated him to give me so severe a blow. I am neither in a
situation of mind, nor from inclination, inclined to enter more
minutely into every part of his letter; but I am fully ready to
answer the material part, namely, that though loving very much my
son, and not forgetting how he saved the Republic of Holland in
1793, and that his endeavours to be of service have never abated,
and that to the conduct of Austria, the faithlessness of Prussia,
and the cowardice of the Dutch, every failure is easily accounted
for, without laying blame on him who deserved a better fate, I shall
not now think it safe for him to continue in the command on the
Continent, where every one seems to conspire to render his situation
hazardous, by either propagating unfounded complaints against him,
or giving credit to them. No one will believe that I take this step
but reluctantly, and the more so since no successor is proposed to
take the command. Truly I do not see where any one is to be found
that can deserve the name now the Duke of Brunswick has declined;
and I am certain he will fully feel the propriety of the resolution
he has taken when he finds that even a son of mine cannot withstand
the torrent of abuse."--Stanhope: _Life of Pitt_.
[289] See the present writer's _The First Gentleman of Europe_, Vol. I,
pp. 309-316.
Of the private life of the Duke of Cumberland the less said the better.
Scandals accumulated around him like leaves on a tree, and most of them,
for example, those connected with Sellis and the birth of Colonel Garth,
are too unedifying to be discussed. There was no shameless crime of
which he was not believed guilty, and he was so deeply loathed by the
people that had he succeeded to the throne there were many who declared
his accession would be followed by a general rising.
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker. From a painting by Karl Anton
Hickel_
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1793
_To face p. 251, Vol. II_]
CHAPTER XXIV
1789-1806
George III, as we have seen, had not been a favourite with his subjects,
but in his distress the great heart of his people went out to him. His
parsimony, his political intrigues, even his breaches of faith were
forgotten by many and forgiven by more, and the sympathy of the whole
nation was extended to him. Gillray might caricature, and "Peter Pindar"
lampoon; the thought of the mightiest monarch in Christendom at the
mercy of a mad-doctor was too touching for laughter and henceforth the
title of "Farmer George" was not a sneer but a token of affection. The
popularity that came to him on his recovery was very grateful to George,
and he told George Hardinge that "his illness had in the end been a
perfect bliss to him, as proving how nobly the people would support him
when he was confined." This healthy feeling was of great value as it
steadied the country at the time when the French Revolution and its
effects were devastating Europe, and through the dark days which were to
follow before the reign ended in a blaze of glory that at an interval of
ten years culminated in Trafalgar and Waterloo. It was this revival of
personal loyalty that enabled Englishmen to content themselves with an
indulgent smile when their King declared to Colonel Landmann, "I should
like to fight Bony single-handed: I'm sure I should; I should give him a
good thrashing, I'm sure I should--I'm sure of it"; and brought monarch
and people in harmony when in the days of the expected French invasion,
"The King in this summer of excitement, was constantly to be seen at
Windsor in the cocked-hat and jack-boots of the blues, in which regiment
he had a troop of his own. He inspected the volunteers, who were drawn
up under the wall of the Round Tower. He invited their officers to be
present at the Sunday evening performances of sacred music. He walked
upon the Terrace--'every inch a King'--and would call, with a stentorian
voice, for the band to play, 'Britons, strike home.'"[290]
[290] Charles Knight: _Passages from a Working Life_.
The first proof of the agreeable alteration in his people's feelings
towards him was made clear to the King, when, by his physician's advice,
he left Windsor in June 1789 for Weymouth. That seaside resort went mad
with loyalty, and so great was the enthusiasm that in the parish church
of Lyndhurst "God save the King" was substituted for a psalm. "The
preparations of festive loyalty were universal," Miss Burney has
written. "Not a child could we meet that had not a _bandeau_ round its
head, cap, or hat, of 'God save the King'; all the bargemen wore it in
cockades, and even the bathing-women had it in large coarse girdles
round their waists. It is printed in golden letters upon most of the
bathing-machines, and in various scrolls and devices it adorns every
shop and almost every house in the two towns ... Melcombe Regis and
Weymouth. The King bathes, and with great success; a machine follows the
royal one into the sea, filled with fiddlers, who play 'God save the
King,' as his Majesty takes his plunge!"[291]
[291] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
At Weymouth, George bathed, rode, paid visits to various towns and
country seats in the neighbourhood, went to the little theatre, and was
everywhere welcomed with a heartiness to which he had been a stranger
since the first months of his reign. The life of the Court there was, of
course, very quiet. "The King's bathing agreed beyond anything with
him," Mrs. Harcourt wrote, "the Princess also looks well, but the Queen
looks, I think, very ill, and by all accounts has been so low and
languid that nothing but real illness can account for it. She always
appears to me to look worse and worse every time I have seen her for the
last half-year. Her foot is bad, but she walks a little. They have no
society at all but those you know of. Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville are
here, but never asked in. The party has always been the Queen, Princess
Royal, Lord Chesterfield and General Harcourt at casino; Princess
Elizabeth, Lady Mary, Lady Caroline, Colonel Gwyn at cribbage; the King,
Colonel Garth, and Lord Chesterfield at piquet. Lord and Lady Courtoun
and Princess Augusta have hitherto played at piquet, but now I make a
fourth. On Sunday, at eight, we all went to the rooms, which is, without
exception, the oddest ceremony I ever saw. A very large room, two or
three hundred people, none of which, except the two Lady Beauclerks and
three or four men, one ever heard of. It is a circle like a drawing-room
exactly, and there they stand--or walk, if they can--for about
half-an-hour; then go into the card room, which opens into it, and where
there are two or three tables. The King and Queen or Princesses play,
the people all walking by the door, and looking in, but not coming in.
The King walked about a little more; and they all went away at
ten."[292]
[292] Quoted in Fitzgerald: _The Good Queen Charlotte_.
There were one or two amusing incidents to enliven the dull routine, as
when an old man, in the exuberance of his loyalty, kissed the back of
the King as the latter came out of the water, and was solemnly assured
by the royal attendants that he had committed an act of high
treason.[293] Miss Burney witnessed another laughable episode. "When the
Mayor and Burgesses came with the Address, they requested leave to kiss
hands: this was graciously accorded; but the Mayor advancing, in a
common way, to take the Queen's hand, as he might that of any Lady
Mayoress, Colonel Gwyn, who stood by, whispered, 'You must kneel, sir!'
He found, however, that he took no notice of this hint, but kissed the
Queen's hand erect. As he passed him in his way back, the Colonel said,
'You should have knelt, sir.' 'Sir,' answered the poor Mayor, 'I
cannot.' 'Everybody does.' 'Sir--I have a wooden leg.' Poor man! 'twas
such a surprise! and such an excuse as no one could dispute."[294] It
was, however, on a subsequent visit of the royal family to Weymouth that
a most ludicrous event happened. Colonel Landmann, a German on the staff
of the Duke of Cumberland, then in command of the district, was on the
Esplanade when he heard cries of "The Queen! The Queen!" He walked
towards the bathing place, looking round, however, to catch a glimpse of
her Majesty. "I had not, however, taken two steps in that way, without
looking before me," he told the story, "when I felt that I had come in
contact with a female, whom, to save her and myself from falling, I
encircled with my arms; and at the same moment, having observed that the
person whom I had so embraced was a little old woman, with a small black
silk bonnet, exactly similar to those now commonly worn by poor and aged
females, and the remainder of her person was covered by a short, plain
scarlet cloth cloak, I exclaimed, 'Hallo, old lady, I very nearly had
you down.' In an instant I felt her push me from her with energy and
indignation, and I was seized by a great number of persons, who grasped
me tightly by the arms and shoulders, whilst a tall, stout fellow in a
scarlet livery, stood close before my face, sharply striking the
pavement with the heavy ferule of a long, golden-headed cane, his eyes
flashing fire, and loudly repeating, 'The Queen--the Queen--the Queen,
sir!' 'Where?--where?--where?' I loudly retorted, greatly perplexed and
even irritated, as I anxiously cast an inquisitive look about me,
amongst the twenty or forty persons by whom I was surrounded. 'I am the
Queen!' sharply exclaimed the old lady. On this discovery I did not
totally lose my presence of mind; for without the delay of a moment I
fell on one knee, and seizing the hem of the Queen's dress, was about to
apply it to my lips, after the German fashion, stammering out at the
same time the best apology I was able to put together on so short a
notice; when the Queen, although I believe much offended, and certainly
not without cause, softened her irritated features, and said, as she
held out to me the back of her right hand: 'No, no, no, you may kiss my
hant. We forgiff: you must pee more careful; fery rute--fery rute,
inteet; we forgiff; there, you may go'."
[293] Southy: _Authentic Memoirs of George III_.
[294] _Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay._
In September the King, supposed to be completely recovered, and
certainly for the moment in good health, returned to Windsor to take up
again the reins of government.
It is not proposed to treat further of the politics of the reign, nor of
the Administrations entrusted with the conduct of the affairs of the
nation. Such matters have been introduced into the pages of this work,
which has no pretensions to be a political history of the period with
which it deals, merely to show that aspect of the character of the King
which became exposed in relation to politics. There has been traced,
though only in outline, his attempts to "be King" as he and his mother
understood it, his successful struggle with the Whig oligarchy, the
decade when to a great extent he was his own minister, his defeat at
the hands of Fox, and his subsequent victory over that statesman, and
the appointment as Prime Minister of his favourite, Pitt.
During the seventeen years that the younger Pitt ruled, however, the
power fell from George III, who little by little was reluctantly
compelled to abandon the system of personal government for which he had
fought so long and so strenuously. It was not, perhaps, entirely because
he was attached to Pitt that he supported him, but because to have
intrigued successfully against him could only result in giving office
again to Fox. Thus, though George ventured to express disapproval of
certain measures of the Government, such as the plan for parliamentary
reform, and the proceedings against Warren Hastings, he had to content
himself with ineffectual protests, not daring to take any drastic step
that would drive the minister to resign. "There was too much originality
in Mr. Pitt's character to allow him to be acceptable to the King,"
Nicholls has stated. "I believe they had many quarrels. There was one in
particular, which became generally known. The King had relied that he
could make Mr. William Grenville minister, in case he was compelled to
separate himself from Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt determined to deprive the King
of this great card. He therefore suggested to his Majesty that it was
necessary that Mr. Grenville should be placed in the House of Lords. The
King saw Mr. Pitt's object and resisted. It was said that this
resistance was carried to such a length that Mr. Pitt had actually
resigned, but that the Queen prevailed on the King to yield to Mr.
Pitt's demand. Mr. William Grenville was removed to the House of Lords,
and thus the King was deprived of the only man whom he could have named
as successor to Mr. Pitt in the House of Commons."[295]
[295] _Recollections and Reflections._
After this vain endeavour to secure his emancipation, the King remained
quiescent for a long time, and indeed showered favours upon the
minister. He offered him the Garter in 1790, and on the death of Lord
North two years later appointed him to the (then) lucrative position of
Warden of the Cinque Ports, subsequently offering £30,000 from the Privy
Purse for the settlement of the minister's debts.[296] He even consented
at Pitt's bidding in 1792 to dismiss Thurlow, whose insubordination was
becoming a nuisance, if not a danger to the Administration. Thus Pitt
was not hampered in his efforts to guide England while the French
Revolution was raging, and, indeed, he might have held office for life
but for his desire to complete his Irish policy with a conciliatory
measure for Catholic Emancipation. To any such concession George was
obdurate, and Pitt's attitude caused him many sleepless nights. He asked
General Garth to read aloud the coronation oath, and, when this was
done, remarked in tones of great agitation: "Where is that power on
earth to absolve me from the due observance of every sentence of that
oath, particularly the one requiring me to 'maintain the Protestant
Reformed religion'? Was not my family seated on the throne for that
express purpose? And shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined,
perhaps overturned? No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door
throughout Europe than consent to any such measure." In vain Lord Eldon
stated that "his Majesty was not in any degree fettered by his
coronation oath in giving assent to a measure which should have the
previous approbation of both Houses of Parliament": the King only
replied: "I can give up my crown, and retire from power. I can quit my
palace, and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my
life, but I cannot break my coronation oath."[297]
[296] Rose: _Diaries_.
[297] Twiss: _Life of Lord Eldon_.
Against such obstinacy and bigotry the gods contend in vain, and, in
consequence of this difference of opinion, Pitt resigned on March 14,
1801. Addington succeeded him and for a while had his predecessor's
support; but several of the measures of the new Administration
displeased Pitt, who gradually fell into opposition, and, on Addington's
resignation in May, 1804, became again Prime Minister, on condition that
he did not offer office to Fox, with whom he had fought against
Addington. He had, however, on the King's recovery from another mental
attack, volunteered a promise not to introduce a measure for Catholic
emancipation during George's lifetime.
Pitt died on January 6, 1806, and then the King had no alternative but
to send for Lord Grenville. "When Pitt died, and old Nobbs sent for
Grenville to make the Government," Creevey has stated, "the latter would
not listen to any prejudice against Fox, but made the Crown divide the
Government between them."[298] To accept Fox was even more unpalatable
than ever to George. Fox had triumphantly beaten the Court candidate at
the famous Westminster election, he had sided with the Prince of Wales,
had expressed himself as in sympathy with the principles, though not the
excesses, of the French Revolution, and had given at a Whig club the
toast of "The Sovereignty of the People of Great Britain," for which
last deed, the King in Council, having ordered the Council-book to be
laid before him, erased the name of the Honourable Charles James Fox
from the list of Privy Councillors.[299]
[298] _Creevey Papers._
[299] May 9, 1798.
"At the period of Mr. Fox's return to power the King, then in full
possession of his faculties, showed for several days considerable
uneasiness of mind," Princess Augusta wrote. "A cloud seemed to overhang
his spirits. On his return one day from London the cloud was evidently
removed, and his Majesty, on entering the room where the Queen and
Princess Augusta were, said he had news to tell them. 'I have taken Mr.
Fox for my minister, and on the whole am satisfied with the
arrangement.'" George behaved unexpectedly well, for when Fox entered
the royal closet to kiss hands as Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, "Mr. Fox," he said, "I little thought you and I should ever
meet again in this place; but I have no desire to look back upon old
grievances, and you may rest assured I shall never remind you of them."
To which Fox replied dutifully: "My deeds, and not my words, shall
commend me to your Majesty;" and until his death lived on amicable terms
with his sovereign.
CHAPTER XXV
LAST YEARS
The King's health was a matter of great anxiety to the royal physicians,
even after his recovery in 1789, and during the hot weather of the
following year their watchfulness had to be redoubled. "The present
object of the doctors was to prevent the King from dozing during the
day, and also to try and keep him from brooding over things too closely.
The French Revolution was going on, and affairs in that country were
becoming very serious. Holland, too, was unsettled, and they were very
anxious that his Majesty should be called upon to do as little business
as possible. The King could not be on horseback after twelve o'clock, as
the heat of the sun on his head was much feared. The Queen, therefore,
had three double carriages made with cane bodies, and covered in with
silk or oilskin, according to the weather, and thus they were enabled to
pay noon visits to the sweet country seats near at hand, and beguile the
time until dinner, at four."[300] This trouble passed in due course, and
it seemed as if George was in thoroughly good health, and likely to
continue so indefinitely. "It is impossible to describe to you how
perfectly well the King is," Lord Auckland wrote to Morton Eden on
December 12, 1791. "He is quite an altered man, and not what you knew
him even before his illness. His manner is gentle, quiet, and, when he
is pleased, quite cordial. He speaks, even of those who are opposed to
his government, with complacency, and without sneer or acrimony. As long
as he remains so well, the tranquillity of this country is on a rock,
for the public property is great and the nation is right-minded, and the
commerce and resources are increasing."[301]
[300] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
[301] _Auckland Correspondence._
Years passed without any mental trouble, but gradually events happened
that preyed upon the mind of the King, who, now no longer a young man,
was less able to resist them. For a long time he had been perturbed by
the unhappy relations between the Prince and Princess of Wales and, when
in 1801 Pitt demanded permission to introduce a measure for the
emancipation of the Catholics, he brooded over the matter until his mind
became again unhinged.[302] On February 15 he took a severe cold, always
the first symptom of one of his attacks--but this apparently gave way
to treatment. "As for my cold, it is well," he said then to Lord
Chatham; "but what else I have, I owe to your brother." On the 22nd
inst., however, his mind wandered, and on the following day he was
unconscious until evening when he exclaimed, "I am better now, but I
will remain true to the Church--I will remain true to the Church,"[303]
and anathematized Pitt and other ministers favourable to the obnoxious
measure. He was seriously ill on March 2, but from that day grew slowly
better, and on the 6th instructed Dr. Willis to write to the minister.
"Tell him I am now quite well--quite recovered from my illness; but what
has he not to answer for who is the cause of my having been ill at all?"
It was then that Pitt, much perturbed and perplexed, told George he
would never re-introduce the subject during his reign, whereupon the
King exclaimed joyfully, "Now my mind will be at ease!"[304] He received
in person and with much kindliness the resignation of Pitt on March 14,
and handed the seals of office to Henry Addington.
[302] _See Ante_, vol. II. p. 260.
[303] Stanhope: _Life of Pitt_.
[304] _Ibid._
The excitement attendant upon these political events caused a relapse,
and George remained for some time at Kew under the care of the Willises.
"I'm very, very sorry the poor King has been, and continues ill, for it
has been and will be a public calamity from its consequences, but
exclusive of _public_ ills among which the loss of Lord Cornwallis here
is _irreparable_, the private misfortunes of the royal family goes to
one's heart," Lady Sarah Napier wrote from Dublin to Lady Susan O'Brien
on April 20, 1801. "Great people suffer sorrow doubly; poor souls, they
are not made to it, till it comes with violence, and then it drives to
indifference or despair."[305] In May those who were allowed to see
George inclined to the belief that he was well, but the Duke of Clarence
declared that "he pitied the (royal) family, for he saw something in the
King that convinced him he must soon be confined again." Still, in spite
of this distressing prognostication, on May 25 Dr. Thomas Willis was
able to send an assuring report to Lord Eldon: "This morning I walked
with his Majesty, who was in a perfectly composed and quiet state. He
told me, with great seeming satisfaction, that he had a most charming
night, 'he could sleep from eleven to half after four,' when, alas! he
had but three hours sleep in the night, which, upon the whole, was
passed in restlessness--in getting out of bed, opening the shutters, in
praying violently, and in making such remarks as betray a consciousness
of his own situation, but which are evidently made for the purpose of
concealing it from the Queen. He frequently called out, 'I am perfectly
well, and my Queen, my Queen has saved me.'"[306] However, the
improvement was not sustained, for on June 12 Willis wrote in a
different strain: "His Majesty still talks much of his prudence, but
shows none. His body, mind, and tongue are all upon the stretch every
minute; and the manner in which he is now expending money, which is so
unlike him when well, all evince that he is not so right as he should
be."[307] A few days later, however, the King pronounced himself well
when he, who hated the Willises, father and son, dismissed from
attendance Dr. Robert Willis, and, in spite of the Lord Chancellor's
remonstrances, declined to reinstate the physician.
[305] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
[306] Twiss: _Life of Eldon_.
[307] _Ibid._
"KEW, _June 21, 1801_.
"The King would not do justice to the feelings of his heart, if he
an instant delayed expressing his conviction of the attachment the
Lord Chancellor bears him, of which the letter now before him is a
fresh proof; but at the same time he cannot but in the strongest
manner decline having Dr. Robert Willis about him. The line of
practice followed with great credit by that gentleman, renders it
incompatible with the King's feelings that he should--now by the
goodness of Divine Providence restored to reason--consult a person
of that description. His Majesty is perfectly satisfied with the
zeal and attention of Dr. Gisborne, in whose absence he will consult
Sir Francis Milman, but cannot bear consulting any of the Willis
family, though he will ever respect the character and conduct of Dr.
Robert Willis. No person that ever had a nervous fever can bear to
continue the physician employed on the occasion; and this holds much
more so in the calamitous one that has so long confined the King,
but of which he is now completely recovered.
"GEORGE R."[308]
[308] Twiss: _Life of Eldon_.
"The subject of the Princess of Wales is still in the King's mind, to a
degree that is distressing, from the unfortunate situation of the
family," Princess Elizabeth wrote to Dr. Thomas Willis during the
illness of her father, who was no sooner able to go out than he visited
his persecuted daughter-in-law. "The first time he rode out after his
illness he rode over Westminster Bridge to Blackheath, never telling any
one where he was going till he turned up to the Princess's door. She was
not up, but jumped out of bed, and went to receive him in her bed-gown
and night-cap. He told Lord Uxbridge that the Princess had run in his
head during his illness perpetually, and he had made a resolution to go
and see her the first time he went out, without telling anybody."[309]
After this visit George went to Weymouth, returning to London on October
29 to open Parliament in person, after which he settled down at Windsor,
where at the end of November Lord Malmesbury visited him. "I was with
the King nearly two hours. I had not seen him since the end of October,
1800--of course not since his last illness. He appeared rather more of
an old man, but not older than men of his age commonly appear. He stoops
rather more, and was apparently less firm on his legs; but he did not
look thinner, nor were there any marks of sickness or decline in his
countenance or manner. These last were much as usual--somewhat less
hurried and more conversable; that is to say, allowing the person to
whom he addressed himself more time to answer and talk than he used to
do when discussing on common subjects, on public or grave ones."[310]
[309] _Life of Sir Gilbert Elliot._
[310] _Diary and Correspondence of Lord Malmesbury._
This illness aged him considerably, and though henceforth he lived very
quietly and almost entirely secluded at Windsor, "his health, both as
regards his bodily ailments, and the state of his mind, became daily
more and more unsatisfactory."[310] Indeed, it is a moot point if he was
ever for any length of time quite well after this year, and even during
the periods when he was free from a suspicion of his malady, the fear of
its recurrence undoubtedly influenced his whole life. It was not until
1804, however, that he was again seriously ill, and then the attack was
probably precipitated by his furious indignation at the publication of
some of his letters by the Prince of Wales, though this fact was, of
course, suppressed in the physician's report.[311] "The fact is I
believe, as I have always done, that the regal function will never more
be exercised by him," Creevey wrote on April 2: and on May 2 stated, "I
feel certain he is devilish bad."[312] A regency was again in sight, but
to the general surprise George recovered, and early in May was able to
drive through the streets by the side of the Queen, but after this, as
General Harcourt told Lord Malmesbury, he was "in looks, manners,
conduct, and conversation, quite different from what he had been before
his illness."[313]
[311] Papendiek: _Court and Private Life_.
[312] _Creevey Papers._
[313] _Diary and Correspondence of Lord Malmesbury._
"Mrs. Harcourt confirms all that Lady Uxbridge had told me; that the
King was apparently quite well when speaking to his ministers, or those
who kept him a little in awe; but that towards his family and dependents
his language was incoherent and harsh; quite unlike his usual
character. She said that Dr. Symonds did not possess in any degree the
talents required to lead the mind from wandering to steadiness; that in
the King's two former illnesses, this had been most ably managed by the
Willises, who had this faculty in a wonderful degree, and were men of
the world, who saw ministers, and knew what the King ought to do; that
the not suffering them to be called in was an unpardonable proof of
folly (not to say worse) in Addington; and that now it was impossible,
since the King's aversion was rooted; that Pitt judged ill in leaving
the sole disposal of the Household to the King; that this sort of power
in his present weak (and, of course, suspicious) state of mind had been
exercised by him most improperly; he had dismissed, and turned away, and
made capricious changes everywhere, from the Lord Chamberlain to the
groom and footman; he had turned away the Queen's favourite coachman;
made footmen grooms, and _vice versâ_, and what was still worse, because
more notorious, had removed Lords of the Bedchamber without a shadow of
reason; that all this afflicted the royal family without measure; that
the Queen was ill and cross; the Princesses low, depressed, and quite
sinking under it; and that unless means could be found to place some
very strong-minded and temperate persons about the King, he would
either commit some extravagance, or he would, by violent carelessness
and exercise, injure his health, and bring on a deadly illness."[314]
[314] _Diary and Correspondence of Lord Malmesbury, May 27, 1804._
Though the King was now suffering from an increasing deafness and a
defective sight, he was better towards the end of 1805 than he had been
for years. According to Lord Henley he was quite cheerful, and troubled
only by his blindness. "He talked to me, indeed, in an affecting manner,
of his situation, saying that he had tried this morning, but in vain, to
read the docket of one of the despatches, but is convinced that he
perceives an amendment, and that even with the left eye he can perceive
the light.[315] Lady Henley says that he presented the muffins to the
ladies last night in his old jocose and good-humoured manner.[316]
[315] "I have every reason to flatter myself that my sight is improving,
yet, I fear, this specimen will not prove the assertion, as you, my
lord, might expect. The gain can be but gradual; objects growing
brighter, though not as yet much clearer."--George III to the Bishop of
Worcester, September 5, 1805.
[316] Lord Henley to Lord Auckland, November 1, 1805.--_Auckland
Correspondence._
"Our Sovereign's sight is so much improved since last spring, that he
can now clearly distinguish objects at an extent of twenty yards. The
King, in consequence of this favourable change, has discontinued the use
of the large flapped hat which he usually wore, and likewise the silk
shade. His Majesty's mode of living is now not quite so abstemious. He
now sleeps on the north side of the Castle, next to the Terrace, in a
roomy apartment, not carpeted, on the ground floor. The room is neatly
furnished, partly in a modern style, under the tasteful direction of the
Princess Elizabeth. The King's private dining-room and the apartments
_en suite_, appropriated to his Majesty's use, are all on the same side
of the Castle.
"The Queen and the Princesses occupy the eastern wing. When the King
rises, which is generally about half-past seven o'clock, he proceeds
immediately to the Queen's saloon, where his Majesty is met by one of
the Princesses; generally either Augusta, Sophia or Amelia; for each in
turn attend their revered parent. From thence the sovereign and his
daughter, attended by the lady-in-waiting, proceed to the Chapel in the
Castle, wherein Divine service is performed by the Dean or Sub-Dean: the
ceremony occupies about an hour. Thus the time passes until nine
o'clock, when the King, instead of proceeding to his own apartment, and
breakfasting alone, now takes that meal with the Queen and the five
Princesses. The table is always set out in the Queen's noble
breakfasting-room, which has been recently decorated with very elegant
modern hangings; and, since the late improvements by Mr. Wyatt, commands
a most delightful and extensive prospect of the Little Park. The
breakfast does not occupy half-an-hour. The King and Queen sit at the
head of the table, and the Princesses according to seniority. Etiquette
in every other respect is strictly adhered to. On entering the room, the
usual forms are observed, agreeably to rank.
"After breakfast, the King generally rides out on horseback, attended by
his equerries, three of the Princesses, namely, Augusta, Sophia, Amelia,
are usually of the party. Instead of only walking his horse, his Majesty
now proceeds at a good round trot. When the weather is unfavourable, the
King retires to his favourite sitting-room, and sends for Generals
Fitzroy or Manners to play at chess with him. His Majesty, who knows the
game well, is highly pleased when he beats the former, that gentleman
being an excellent player.
"The King dines regularly at two o'clock; the Queen and Princesses at
four. His Majesty visits, or takes a glass of wine and water with them
at five. After this period, public business is frequently transacted by
the King in his own study, wherein he is attended by his private
secretary, Colonel Taylor. The evening is, as usual, passed at cards in
the Queen's drawing-room, where three tables are set out. To these
parties many of the principal nobility, etc., residing in the
neighbourhood are invited. When the Castle clock strikes ten, the
visitors retire. The supper is set out, but that is merely a matter of
form, and of which none of the family partake. These illustrious
personages retire at eleven o'clock, to rest for the night. The journal
of one day is the history of a whole year."[317]
[317] A contemporary account, quoted in _George III, his Court and
Family_.
Slowly but surely his sight gave way, and in the winter of 1806 he was
nearly blind. Pitt noted "a great change of handwriting ... it has grown
much larger, and the characters are very indistinct and
ill-formed;"[318] and in 1810 Lady Jerningham wrote, "John Bedingfield
has shewn to me the poor King's signature, and it would be impossible to
read in it _George Rex_ if the paper did not announce it had that
official signature."[319] George bore the affliction bravely. "I am
quite resigned," he said, "for what have we in this world to do, but to
suffer and perform the will of the Almighty."[320] Soon he could ride
only when the horse was led by a servant; while on foot he had to grope
his way with a stick. In spite of his determination to bear his ills
with fortitude he grew morbid, frequently asked to hear Handel's "Total
Eclipse," and one day was overheard by the Queen to quote Milton's lines
on his blindness:[321]
"O! loss of sight, of thee I most complain!
* * * * *
O, dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon,
Irrecoverably dark, total eclipse
Without all hope of day!
O, first created Beam, and thou great Word,
'Let there be light, and light was over all';
Why am I thus bereaved thy prime decree?"
[318] Stanhope: _Life of Pitt_.
[319] _Jerningham Letters._
[320] Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_.
[321] _Relics of Royalty._
In 1810 the King was greatly worried by the failure of the Walcheren
expedition, and the notorious "Duke and Darling" scandal that brought
disgrace upon the Duke of York and resulted in his resignation of the
office of Commander-in-Chief. On October 24 he was very unwell, and at
the Drawing-room on the next day every one noticed his excited manner.
On the 29th the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor visited him at
Windsor, where they came to the conclusion that he was not in a fit
state to discharge his kingly duties, and orders were given that only
physicians and medical attendants should have access to the royal
apartments. Then came the crowning blow in the form of the death of his
youngest and favourite daughter, Amelia, on November 2. She was deeply
attached to him, and placed on his finger a ring, containing a lock of
her hair, enclosed under a crystal tablet and inscribed "Remember me."
Even that inveterate opponent of royalty, "Peter Pindar," was touched,
and commemorated the event in some of the worst lines he ever wrote.
"With all the virtues blent, and every grace,
To charm the world and dignify her race,
Life's taper losing fail its feeble fire,
The fair Amelia, thus bespoke her sire:
Faint on the bed of sickness lying,
My spirit from its mansion flying,
Not long the light these languid eyes will see:
My friend, my father, and my King,
O, wear a daughter's mournful ring,
Receive the token, and 'Remember me.'"
On November 7, Sir Henry Halford, Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Baillie were
called in, and, with the approval of the Queen, in spite of his
Majesty's known wish, Dr. Willis was sent for. Prayers were publicly
offered for his recovery, and though once or twice he was a little
better, there was little or no hope of permanent improvement and on
December 21 Perceval introduced a Regency Bill, which became law on
February 4, 1811.
Hitherto all the attacks had been of short duration, none of them
continuing much beyond six months, but when deprived of his reason in
1810, he was never again in a fit state to be entrusted with the cares
of sovereignty. He had made his last appearance at a social function at
Windsor on the anniversary of his accession in 1810, haggard, infirm,
nearly blind and almost deaf, leaning on the arm of the Queen, and
speaking in the hurried, almost unintelligible manner that was an
invariable sign of a forthcoming illness. On May 20, 1811, he was seen
for the last time by any one outside his immediate family and
_entourage_. "On Sunday night, May 20, our town was in a fever of
excitement at the authorized report that the next day the physicians
would allow his Majesty to appear in public," an inhabitant of Windsor
wrote. "On that Monday morning it was said that his saddle-horse was to
be got ready. This truly was no wild rumour. We crowded to the park and
the castle-yard. The favourite horse was there. The venerable man, blind
but steady, was soon in the saddle, as I had often seen him, a hobby
groom at his side with a leading rein. He rode through the Little Park
to the Great Park. The bells rang. The troops fired a _feu de joie_.
The King returned to the Castle within an hour. He was never again seen
without those walls."[322]
[322] Quoted by Fitzgerald Molloy in _Court Life below Stairs_.
It was thought that the King could not long survive. "The general
opinion is that the King will die before the 22nd inst., (the date to
which Parliament was prorogued),"[323] Creevey wrote on July 12; and a
fortnight later Lord Grenville expressed the same opinion when writing
to Lord Auckland: "It is, I believe, certainly true that the King has
taken for the last three days scarcely any food at all, and that, unless
a change takes place very shortly in that respect, he cannot survive
many days."[324] Lord Buckinghamshire, however, was able to state on
August 13, "The King, I should suppose, is not likely to die soon, but I
fear his mental recovery is hardly to be expected."[325]
[323] _Creevey Papers._
[324] _Auckland Correspondence._
[325] Byron: _Letters and Journal_.
According to Mrs. Papendiek, who obtained her information from "private
sources," the King's malady was caused more by a loss of mental power
than an aberration of intellect, and it never assumed a condition of
actual insanity.[326] There was some hope in February 1811 that the King
would recover, and some members of the Council were actually of opinion
that at this time he was in full possession of his faculties, so calmly
and sensibly had he spoken on various topics, and they were prepared to
pronounce him restored and able to resume his power, Lord Ellenborough
using the words of Pilate, "I find no fault at all in that just person."
To this opinion Sir Henry Halford could not subscribe, for, knowing the
cunning of mad persons, he was aware that often only the greatest
vigilance could detect the existence of the delusions from which the
patient suffered.
[326] _Court and Private Life._
"One day when the King fancied himself surrounded by servants only, and
when a medical attendant was watching unseen, he took a glass of wine
and water and drank it to the health _conjugia meæ dilectissimæ
Elizabethæ_, meaning Lady Pembroke. Here was a delusion clearly
established and noted down immediately: the use of Latin, which was not
to be understood by those whom he supposed _only_ to hear him, affording
a singular proof of the old cunning of insanity. A few days later, Sir
Henry was walking with him on the Terrace; he began talking of the
Lutheran religion, of its superiority to that of the Church of England,
and ended with growing so vehement that he really ranted forth its
praises without mentioning that which Sir Henry believes to have been
the real motive of this preference--the left-handed marriages allowed.
He was very anxious to see whether traces of this delusion would appear
again, and went to the Duke of York to ask for information as to the
tenets, practices, etc., etc., of the Lutheran Church. The Duke said,
"Watch him in Passion Week; if he fancies himself a Lutheran, you will
see an extraordinary degree of mortification and mourning," etc., etc.
When Sir Henry returned to the assembled physicians he wrote down the
substance of this conversation, and without communicating it to anybody,
requested those present to seal the paper and keep it in a chest where
their notes and other papers of importance are kept, under locks of
which each had a separate key. When the Monday in Passion Week arrived,
and Sir Henry had nearly forgotten the conversation, he went into the
King's dressing-room while he was at his toilet, and found the
attendants in amazement at his having called for and put on black
stockings, black waistcoat and breeches, and a grey coat with black
buttons. It was curious to hear that his delusions assumed, like those
of other madmen, the character of pride, and that a Sovereign ever
fancied himself in a station more elevated than his own. He would
sometimes fancy himself possessed of a supernatural power, and when
angry with any of his keepers, stamp his foot and say he would send them
down into hell."[327]
[327] F. W. Wynn: _Diaries of a Lady of Quality_.
It was during the lucid interval to which reference has just been made
that Sir Henry Halford was deputed to broach an awkward subject to the
King. George had known of the death of Princess Amelia, and every day
his attendants dreaded lest he should ask questions as to her property
and her will. There had been a close intimacy between the Princess and
General Fitzroy--there was the rumour of a secret marriage--and the
trouble was that she had left everything to him. The Queen was afraid to
mention this to the King, and Perceval and the Lord Chancellor
successively undertook the disclosure and shrunk from it, imposing it
upon Sir Henry. "Never," said the latter subsequently, "could I forget
the feelings with which, having requested some private conversation with
the King, after the other physicians were gone, I was called into a
window with the light falling so full on my countenance that even the
poor nearly blind King could see it. I asked whether it would be
agreeable to him to hear now how Princess Amelia had disposed of her
little property. "Certainly, certainly, I want to know," with great
eagerness. I reminded him at the beginning of his illness he had
appointed Fitzroy to ride with her at Weymouth; how it was natural and
proper she should leave him some token for these services; that,
excepting jewels, she had nothing to leave, and had bequeathed them all
to him; that the Prince of Wales, thinking jewels a very inappropriate
bequest for a man, had given Fitzroy a pecuniary compensation for them
(his family, by the bye, always said it was very inadequate) and had
distributed slight tokens to all the attendants and friends of the
Princess, giving the bulk of the jewels to Princess Mary, her most
constant and kindest of nurses. Upon this the poor King exclaimed,
"Quite right, just like the Prince of Wales," and no more was
said."[328]
[328] F. W. Wynn: _Diaries of a Lady of Quality_.
It was in the summer of 1814 that the Queen entered the King's apartment
during one of these lucid intervals, and found him singing a hymn and
accompanying himself on the harpsichord. When he had concluded, he knelt
down and prayed aloud for his consort, for his family, for the nation,
and, lastly, for himself, that it might please God to avert his heavy
calamity, or, if not, give him resignation under it. Then his emotions
overpowered him, he burst into tears, and his reason fled. He was never
again sane.[329]
[329] _Georgiana._
"The public bulletins which have been issued for some months past, have
all stated that his Majesty's disorder remains undiminished; and we
understand that it is the opinion of the medical gentlemen attending him
that nothing far short of a miracle can bring about a recovery from his
afflicting malady, "so runs a contemporary account. "At times, we are
happy to learn, he is tolerably composed. The number of persons
specially appointed by the doctors is reduced from six to two, and his
principal pages are admitted, and have been for some time, to attend
upon him, as when he enjoyed good health. His Majesty dines at half past
one o'clock, and, in general, orders his dinners: he invariably has
roast beef upon the tables on Sundays. He dresses for dinner, wears his
orders, etc.
"He occupies a suite of thirteen rooms (at least, he and his attendants)
which are situated on the North side of Windsor Castle, under the State
rooms. Five of the thirteen rooms are wholly devoted to the personal use
of the King. Dr. John Willis sleeps in the sixth room, adjoining, to be
in readiness to attend his Majesty. Dr. John attends the Queen every
morning after breakfast, and about half-past ten o'clock, and reports to
her the state of the afflicted monarch; the Doctor, afterwards, proceeds
to the Princesses, and other branches of the Royal family, who may
happen to be at Windsor, and makes a similar report to them. In general
the Queen returns with Dr. Willis, through the state rooms, down a
private staircase, leading into the King's suite of rooms, appropriated
to this special purpose. Sometimes she converses with her Royal husband.
The Queen is the only person who is admitted to this peculiar privilege,
except the medical gentleman, and his Majesty's personal attendants. In
the case of Dr. John Willis's absence, Dr. Robert Willis, his brother,
takes his place. The other medical gentlemen take it in rotation to be
in close attendance upon the King.
"The suite of rooms which his Majesty and his attendants occupy, have
the advantage of very pure and excellent air, being on the North side of
the terrace round the Castle; and he used to occasionally walk on the
terrace; but, we understand, he now declines, owing to the bad state of
his eyes, not being able to enjoy the view. The Lords and Grooms of the
King's Bedchamber, his Equerries and other attendants are occasionally
in attendance at Windsor Castle, the same as if the King enjoyed good
health. Two King's Messengers go from the Secretary of State's offices
daily to Windsor, and return to London, as they have been accustomed to
do for a number of years past. The messenger who arrives at noon brings
a daily account of the King's health to the Prince Regent, and the
Members of the Queen's Council. His Majesty has never been left since
his afflicting malady, without one of the Royal Family being in the
Castle, and a member of the Queen's council, appointed under the Regency
Act."[330]
[330] _The Gentleman's Magazine_, January 5, 1816.
During his last years George III was subject to harmless and not
unpleasing delusions. "The good King's mania consists in pleasant errors
of the mind,"[331] said Lady Jerningham; and this statement was
confirmed by Princess Elizabeth: "If anything can make us more easy
under the calamity which it has pleased God to inflict on us, it is the
apparent happiness that my revered father seems to feel."[332] He found
much comfort in religion, and on one occasion declared, "Although I am
deprived of my sight, and am shut out from the society of my beloved
family, yet I can approach my Blessed Lord," and thereupon administered
to himself the Sacrament.[333] Indeed, he was unhappy only when he could
not have his favourite dinner of cold mutton and salad, plover's eggs,
stewed peas, and cherry tart; and fearful--he who in his senses had
never known fear--only when it was proposed to shave his beard. "If it
must be," he said, "I will have the battle axes called in."[334]
[331] _Jerningham Letters, February 14, 1817._
[332] Galt: _George III, His Court and Family_.
[333] _Georgiana._
[334] _Lord Carlisle's Reminiscences._
[Illustration: GEORGE III IN HIS STUDY
_To face p. 287, Vol. II_]
The King loved to wander through the corridors, a venerable figure with
long silvery beard, attired in a silk morning gown and ermine night cap,
holding imaginary conversations with ministers long since dead,
"rationally as to the discourse, but the persons supposed present"; and
so pleasantly did he while away the time that sometimes his dinner was
ready before he expected it. "Can it be so late?" he would ask. "_Quand
on s'amuse le temps vole._"[335] He was fully convinced that Princess
Amelia--"my poor Am"--was alive and happy at Hanover, enjoying perennial
youth and beauty; and believed that he was prosecuting an amorous
intrigue with Lady Pembroke, whom he often believed to be his wife, and
whose absence angered him. "Is it not a strange thing, Adolphus," he
said to the Duke of Cambridge, "that they still refuse to let me go to
Lady Pembroke, although every one knows I am married to her; but what is
worse, that infamous scoundrel Halford was at the marriage, and has now
the effrontery to deny it to my face."[336] He considers himself no
longer an inhabitant of this world, and often, when he had played one of
his favourite tunes, observes that he was very fond of it when he was in
the world. He speaks of the Queen and all his family, and hopes they are
doing well now, for he loved them very much when he was with them,"
Princess Elizabeth remarks, and the belief that he was dead was one of
his regular delusions. "I must have a new suit of clothes, he said one
day, "and I will have them black in memory of George the Third, for he
was a good man."[337]
[335] _Ibid._
[336] _Buckingham Memoirs._
[337] _Relics of Royalty._
The King lived on, recognizing no one, and knowing nothing of
contemporary events. Waterloo was fought and won, and Napoleon
overthrown; Princess Charlotte of Wales married and died, his consort
went down to her grave, and his sons and daughters contracted
matrimonial alliances, yet he lived on. Indeed, his constitution was so
sound that, in spite of all infirmities, his physical health continued
good. "In 1818, however, he had ceased even to walk, being conveyed in
his chair from his bed to another room, and placed near an old
harpsichord of Queen Anne's, said not to have been tuned since her time.
On this he would play for hours, in the belief that he was making
music."[338]
[338] _Lord Carlisle's Reminiscences._
[Illustration: _From a portrait by H. Eldridge_
QUEEN CHARLOTTE
_To face p. 289, Vol. II_]
Queen Charlotte had been ailing for a long time. "The severe affliction
and constant anxiety she was in was probably the cause, and from this
time (1789) her Majesty's health was less uniformly good," wrote Mrs.
Papendiek. "The dropsy, which had been floating in her constitution
since the birth of Prince Alfred, now made its deposit, and caused her
at times much suffering." She had been much upset by the King's various
outbreaks of violence in 1804, and was, indeed, so alarmed that
thereafter she saw little of him. "The Queen lives upon ill terms with
the King. They never sleep or dine together; she persists in living
entirely separate," wrote Lord Colchester; and Lord Malmesbury recorded:
"The Queen will never receive the King without one of the Princesses
being present; never says in reply a word. Piques herself on this
discreet silence, and when in London, locks the door of her
white-room--her boudoir--against him." On April 23, 1817, she was seized
with a severe spasmodic attack, but with indomitable endurance she
continued to hold Drawing-rooms and was present at the royal weddings
that took place during the year. She was anxious to be taken to Windsor,
but the step was long delayed, and she never got further than Kew,
where she died after a lingering and painful illness, on November 16,
1818.
In that year Byron wrote, "the poor good King may live to 200; he
continues in good bodily health, and is perfectly happy, conversing with
the dead, and sometimes relating pleasant things. They say it is a most
charming illusion."[339]
[339] Byron: _Letters and Journal_.
Early in January, 1820, it became known that the old King was unwell,
and though a reassuring bulletin was issued--"His Majesty's disorder has
undergone no sensible alteration. His Majesty's bodily health has
partaken some of the infirmities of age, but has been generally good
during the last month"--it was still believed that he would not recover.
He could not get warm, his food did not nourish him, and his frame grew
more and more emaciated; but it was not until January 27, when for the
first time he kept his bed, that the physicians pronounced his life in
danger. Two days later death claimed him. "A few minutes before this
venerable monarch expired, he extended his arms, and bade his attendants
raise him up--the doctors signified to his attendants not to do so, in
the supposition that the effort would extinguish life,--but upon his
repeating the request, they obeyed, and he thanked them. His lips were
parched, and occasionally wetted with a sponge. He, with perfect
presence of mind, said: 'Do not wet my lips but when I open my mouth.'
And when done he added, thank you, it does me good.'"[340]
[340] _Jerningham Letters._
So on January 29, 1820, died George III in the sixtieth year of his
reign, and at the patriarchal age of eighty-one, unhonoured and unsung,
the monarch of the greatest country that the world has yet seen, yet
unenvied by the lowest of his subjects. "What preacher need moralize on
this story; what words save the simplest are requisite to tell it? It is
too terrible for tears." So runs Thackeray's exquisite passage on the
downfall of George III, with which this work may fittingly conclude.
"The thought of such misery smites me down in submission before the
Ruler of kings and men, the Monarch supreme over empires and republics,
the inscrutable Dispenser of Life, death, happiness, victory.... Low he
lies, to whom the proudest used to kneel once, and who was cast lower
than the poorest: dead, whom millions prayed for in vain. Driven off his
throne, buffeted by rude hands; with his children in revolt; the darling
of his old age killed before him untimely; our Lear hangs over her
breathless lips and cries, 'Cordelia, Cordelia, stay a little!'
'Vex not his ghost--Oh! let him pass--he hates him
That would upon the rack of this tough world
Stretch him out longer!'
Hush! Strife and Quarrel, over the solemn grave! Sound, trumpets, a
mournful march! Fall, dark curtain, upon his pageant, his pride, his
grief, his awful tragedy!"
AUTHORITIES
ADOLPHUS, JOHN: History of England from the Accession to the
Decease of King George the Third. 8 vols. 1840-1845.
AIKIN, JOHN: Annals of the Reign of George the Third. 2 vols. 1820.
ALBEMARLE, GEORGE THOMAS, EARL OF: Memoirs of the Earl of
Rockingham and his Contemporaries. 2 vols. 1852.
ALMON, JOHN: Anecdotes and Speeches of Chatham. Sixth Edition.
1797.
---- Anecdotes of Eminent Persons. 3 vols. 1797.
ANDREWS, JOHN: History of the War with America. 4 vols. 1783.
ANONYMOUS: Anecdotes of his late Majesty George the Third. 1822.
---- The Festival of Wit. 1783.
---- An Historical Fragment relating to her late Majesty Queen
Caroline. 1824.
---- Important Facts relative to George III. 1783.
---- Memoirs of his late most excellent Majesty, King George III,
chiefly illustrative of his private, domestic and Christian
virtues. Second Edition. 1820.
---- The New Foundling Hospital for Wit. New Edition. 1784.
---- On the Death of his late Majesty, George the Third, with
interesting Anecdotes and Reflections. 1820.
---- Some Particulars of the Royal Indisposition. 1804.
---- Vanelia, or, The Amours of the Great. 1732.
AUCKLAND, WILLIAM, BARON: Journals and Correspondence. 4 vols.
1861-2.
BAINES, EDWARD (the Elder): History of the Reign of George III. 4
vols. 1793.
BANCROFT, GEORGE: History of the United States. 6 vols. 1885-6.
---- History of the American Revolution. 4 vols. 1861.
BEDFORD, JOHN RUSSELL, FOURTH DUKE OF: Correspondence. Edited by
Lord John Russell. 3 vols. 1846.
BELSHAM, WILLIAM: Memoirs of the Reign of George III. 4 vols. 1793.
BERRY, MARY: Journals and Correspondence. 1783-1852. Edited by Lady
Theresa Lewis. 3 vols. 1865.
BISSETT, ROBERT: History of the Reign of George III. 7 vols. 1820.
---- Memoirs of Sir Andrew Mitchell. 2 vols. 1850.
BOSWELL, JAMES: Life of Samuel Johnson. 1867.
BRIGHT, J. FRANCK: History of England. Constitutional Monarchy,
1689-1839.
BRODRICK, HON. G. C., and FOTHERINGHAM, J. K.: Political History of
England. Vol. XI. 1801-1837. 1906.
BROUGHAM, HENRY, LORD: Historical Sketches of Statesmen who
flourished in the Time of George III. 2 vols. 1839.
BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, RICHARD, DUKE OF: Memoirs of the Court and
Cabinets of George the Third. From original family documents.
1853-5.
BURKE, EDMUND: Works and Correspondence. Edited by Lord John
Russell. 3 vols. 1846.
BYRON, GEORGE, LORD: Letters and Journals. 1832.
CAMPBELL, JOHN, BARON: Lives of the Lord Chancellors. 8 vols.
1848-1869.
CARLYLE, THOMAS: History of Frederick II of Prussia, called
Frederick the Great. 10 vols. 1888.
CHATHAM, WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF: Correspondence. 4 vols. 1840.
CHESTERFIELD, PHILIP, EARL OF: Letters. Edited, with Notes, by Lord
Mahon. 5 vols. 1845.
CLARKE, ---- : The Georgian Era. Memoirs of Eminent Persons. 4
vols. 1832.
COBBIN, INGRAM: Georgiana, or, Anecdotes of George the Third.
1820.
COKE, LADY JANE: Letters to her Friend Mrs. Eyre, at Derby
(1747-1758). Edited by Mrs. Ambrose Rathbone.
COLCHESTER, CHARLES ABBOT, LORD: Diary and Correspondence. 3 vols.
1861.
CORNWALLIS, MARQUIS: Correspondence. Edited by C. Ross. 3 vols.
1859.
COXE, WILLIAM: Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole. 1798.
CRAIK, G. L., and MACFARLANE, C.: Pictorial History of the Reign of
George III. 4 vols. 1842.
CREEVEY, THOMAS: The Creevey Papers. A Selection from the
Correspondence and Diaries of the late Thomas Creevey, M.P. Born
1766. Died 1838. Edited by Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bart. 2 vols. 1904.
D'ARBLAY, FRANCES: Diary and Letters. With Notes by W. C. Ward, and
prefaced by Lord Macaulay's Essay. 3 vols. 1890-1.
DELANY, MRS.: Autobiography and Correspondence, with Interesting
Reminiscences of King George the Third and Queen Charlotte. Edited
by the Right Hon. Lady Llanover. 3 vols. 1861. Second Series. 3
vols. 1862.
DODINGTON, GEORGE BUBB; BARON MELCOMBE: Diary. Edited by Henry
Penruddocke Wyndham. Fourth Edition. 1809.
DORAN, JOHN: Lives of the Queens of England of the House of
Hanover. 2 vols. 1855.
DOYLE, J. A.: The Colonies under the House of Hanover. 1907.
FISKE, JOHN: The American Revolution. 2 vols. 1891.
FITZGERALD, PERCY: The Good Queen Charlotte. 1899.
---- The Royal Dukes and Princes of the Family of George III. A
View of Court Life and Manners for Seventy Years. 1760-1830. 2
vols. 1882.
---- John Wilkes. 2 vols.
FITZMAURICE, LORD E.: Life of the Earl of Shelburne. 3 vols.
1875-6.
FOX, CHARLES JAMES: Memorials and Correspondence. Edited by Lord
John Russell. 1853.
FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN: Works. 10 vols. 1887-8.
GALT, JOHN: George the Third, his Court and Family. New Edition. 2
vols. 1824.
GEORGE II: Letters in the original, with translation, and Messages
that passed between the King, Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales
on the occasion of the birth of the young Princess. 1737.
GEORGE III: The Correspondence of King George the Third with Lord
North from 1768 to 1783. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes by
W. Bodham Donne. 2 vols. 1867.
---- Correspondence between his Majesty, the Prince of Wales, the
Duke of York, and Mr. Addington, on the Offer of Military Service
made by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, 1803.
---- Letters of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the
Right Hon. William Pitt, on the Proposed Regency, 1788-9, to which
is added the Declaration and Protest of the Royal Dukes against the
Regency now proposed. 1810.
---- History and Proceedings of the Lords and Commons with regard
to the Regency, containing all the Speeches on the proposed Regency
Bill, the three reports of the Physicians, etc.
GIBBON, EDWARD: Autobiography and Correspondence. 2 vols. 1869.
GIFFORD, WILLIAM: The Baviad and The Mæviad. Sixth Edition. 1800.
GORDON, WILLIAM: History of the Rise of the Independence of the
United States. 4 vols. 1788.
GRAFTON, AUGUSTUS, THIRD DUKE OF: Autobiography and Political
Correspondence. Edited by Sir William Anson. 1898.
GRAHAME, JAMES: History of the United States. 4 vols. 1836.
GREEN, J. R.: History of the English People. 4 vols. 1877-80.
GREEN, WILLIAM: Annals of George the Third. 2 vols. 1808.
GRENVILLE PAPERS: Correspondence and Diaries of Richard Grenville,
of Earl Temple, and of the Right Hon. George Grenville, their
Friends and Contemporaries. Edited by William James Smith. 4 vols.
1852-3.
HAMILTON, LADY ANNE: Secret History of the Court of England from
the Accession of George the Third to the Death of George the
Fourth. 1832.
HARRIS, GEORGE: Life of Lord Hardwicke. 3 vols. 1847.
HENDERSON, T. F.: Frederick, Prince of Wales (Dictionary of
National Biography).
HERVEY, MARY LEPEL, LADY: Letters. With a Memoir and Illustrative
Notes. 1821.
HERVEY, JOHN, LORD: Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second from
his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline. Edited by John Wilson
Croker. 2 vols. 1848.
HITCHMAN, FRANCIS: Eighteenth Century Studies. 1881.
HOLLAND, HENRY, THIRD LORD: Posthumous Memoirs of the Whig Party.
1852.
---- Further Memoirs of the Whig Party, 1807-21. With some
Miscellaneous Reminiscences. Edited by Lord Stavordale. 1905.
HOLT, E.: The Public and Domestic Life of George III. 1820.
HORNER, FRANCIS: Memoirs and Correspondence. Edited by his brother,
Leonard Horner. 2 vols, 1843.
HUISH, ROBERT: Historical Gallery, 1830.
---- The Public and Private Life of George the Third. 1821.
HUNT, LEIGH: The Town. St. Paul's to St. James's. 1906.
HUNT, WILLIAM: Political History of England, Vol. X, 1760-1801.
1905.
JERNINGHAM: The Jerningham Letters (1780-1843). Being excerpts from
the Correspondence and Diary of the Hon. Lady Jerningham and of her
daughter, Lady Bedingfield. Edited by Egerton Castle. 1869.
JESSE, JOHN HENEAGE: George Selwyn and his Contemporaries. New
Edition. 4 vols. 1882.
---- Memoirs of the Life and Reign of King George the Third. Second
Edition. 3 vols. 1867.
"JUNIUS": Letters. Edited by John Wade. 2 vols. 1890.
KING, WILLIAM: Political and Literary Anecdotes of his Own Times.
2nd Edition. 1819.
KNIGHT, CHARLES: Passages from a Working Life.
LECKY, W. E. H.: A History of England in The Eighteenth Century. 8
vols. 1886-90.
LENNOX, LADY SARAH: The Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox,
1745-1826. Edited by the Countess of Ilchester and Lord Stavordale.
2 vols. 1901.
MACAULAY, LORD. Essays.
MCCARTHY, JUSTIN and JUSTIN HUNTLEY: A History of the Four Georges
and of William the Fourth. 2 vols. 1905.
MAHON, LORD: History of England, 1713-1783. 1839-54.
MALMESBURY, JAMES HARRIS, FIRST EARL OF: Diary and Correspondence
of James Harris, First Earl of Malmesbury. Edited by his Grandson,
the third Earl. 4 vols. 1844.
MASSEY, RIGHT HON. WILLIAM: A History of England during the Reign
of George the Third. Second Edition. 4 vols. 1865.
MINTO, LORD: Life and Letters of Gilbert Elliot, First Lord Minto.
Edited by the Countess of Minto. 3 vols. 1784.
MOLLOY, J. FITZGERALD: Court Life Below Stairs. 4 vols. 1882-3.
NICHOLS, JOHN: Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century. 9
vols. 1812-5.
NICHOLLS, JOHN: Recollections and Reflections, Personal and
Political. 2nd Edition, 1822.
PAPENDIEK, Mrs.: Court and Private Life in the time of Queen
Charlotte; being the Journals of Mrs. Papendiek, Assistant-Keeper
of the Wardrobes and Reader to Her Majesty. Edited by her
Granddaughter, Mrs. Vernon Delves Broughton. 2 vols. 1887.
PARKES, J.: Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis. 2 vols. 1867.
PASTON, GEORGE: Little Memoirs of the Eighteenth Century. 1901.
---- Sidelights on the Georgian Period. 1902.
---- Social Caricature in the Eighteenth Century. 1905.
PHILLIMORE, J. G.: History of England during the Reign of George
III, vol. I. 1863.
PHILLIMORE, SIR R. J.: Memoirs and Correspondence of George Lord
Lyttelton. 2 vols. 1845.
PICKERING, ANNA MARIA WILHELMINA: Memoirs. Edited by her son,
Spencer Pickering. Together with Extracts from the Journals of his
Father, John Spencer Stanhope. 1903.
PIERCE, E.: A Concise Biographical Memoir of George III. 1820.
RAE, W. FRASER: Wilkes, Sheridan and Fox; the Opposition under
George III. 1784.
---- Sheridan: A Biography. With an Introduction by Sheridan's
Grandson, the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava. 2 vols. 1896.
RAY, DR.: The Insanity of George III. ("American Journal of
Insanity," 1855.)
ROSE, GEORGE: Diary and Correspondence. Edited by L. V. Harcourt. 2
vols. 1860.
ROWLEY, WILLIAM: Truth Vindicated ... with facts extracted from the
Parliamentary reports, and reasons for declaring the case of a
Great Personage to have been only a feverish or symptomatic
delirium.
RYVES, L. J. H.: An Appeal for Royalty. 1858.
SELWYN, GEORGE: His Letters and his Life. Edited by E. S. Roscoe
and Helen Clergue.
SEWARD, WILLIAM: Anecdotes of some Distinguished Persons. 4 vols.
Fourth Edition. 1798.
SIDMOUTH, HENRY ADDINGTON, VISCOUNT: Life and Correspondence.
Edited by the Hon. George Pellew. 3 vols. 1847.
SOUTHY, ROBERT: Authentic Memoirs of George the Third. 1820.
STANHOPE, LORD: Life of Pitt. 4 vols. 1861-2.
STEDMAN, C.: History of the American War. 2 vols. 1794.
STORY, JOSEPH: The Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. 1833.
TAYLOR, JOSEPH: Relics of Royalty, or, Remarks, Anecdotes and
Conversations of his late Majesty, George the Third. 1820.
THACKERAY, FRANCIS: History of the Earl of Chatham. 2 vols. 1827.
THACKERAY, W. M.: The Four Georges. 1861.
THOMS, WILLIAM J.: Hannah Lightfoot. Queen Charlotte and the
Chevalier D'Eon. Dr. Wilmot's Polish Princess. Reprinted, with some
additions, from _Notes and Queries_. 1867.
TOMLINE, G. P.: Memoir of William Pitt. 3 vols. 3rd Edition. 1821.
TRAIL, H. D. (edited by): Social England. Vol. 5. 1896.
TREVELYAN, SIR G. O.: The Early History of Charles James Fox. 1880.
---- The American Revolution. 3 vols. 1905.
TWISS, HORACE: The Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor
Eldon, with Selections from his Correspondence. 3 vols. 1844.
TYTLER, SARAH: Six Royal Ladies of the House of Hanover. 1898.
WALDEGRAVE, JAMES, EARL: Memoirs from 1754 to 1758. 1821.
WALPOLE, HORACE: Letters. 16 vols. Edited by Mrs. Toynbee. 1905.
---- Memoirs of the last Ten Years of the Reign of George II.
Edited by Lord Holland. 2 vols. 1822.
WALPOLE, HORACE: Memoirs of the Reign of George III. Edited by Sir
Denis le Marchant, and re-edited by G. F. Russell-Barker. 4 vols.
1894.
---- Journals of the Reign of George III from the year 1771 to
1783. Edited by Dr. Doran. 2 vols. 1859.
---- Walpoliana. With a Biographical Sketch of Horace Walpole. 2
vols. N.D.
WATKINS, JOHN: Memoirs of Sophia Charlotte, Queen of Great Britain.
2 vols. 1819.
WHIBLEY, CHARLES: William Pitt. 1906.
WILLIAMS, SIR CHARLES HANBURY: Works. With Notes by Horace Walpole.
2 vols. 1822.
WILLIS, FRANCIS: A Treatise on Mental Derangement. Second Edition.
2 vols. 1843.
WINDHAM, WILLIAM: The Diary of the Right Honourable William
Windham, 1748-1810. Edited by Mrs. Baring. 1866.
WITHERS, PHILIP: History of the Royal Malady, with Variety of
Entertaining Anecdotes, to which are added Strictures of the
Declaration of Horne Tooke, Esq., respecting "Her Royal Highness
the Princess of Wales," commonly called Mrs. Fitzherbert. With
Interesting Remarks on a Regency. By a Page of the Presence (Philip
Withers, 1789).
WOLCOT, JOHN (_i.e._, "PETER PINDAR"): Works. 5 vols. 1812.
WRAXALL, SIR NATHANIEL: The Historical and Posthumous Memoirs.
Edited by H. B. Wheatley. 5 vols. 1884.
WRIGHT, THOMAS: Caricature History of the House of Hanover. London.
1867.
WYNN, F. W.: Diaries of a Lady of Quality. Edited by A. Hayward.
1864.
YONGE, C. D.: The Life and Administration of Robert Banks, Second
Earl of Liverpool. 3 vols. 1868.
(Also numerous pamphlets, lampoons, etc.; the Dictionary of National
Biography; _Notes and Queries_; _The Annual Register_; and reports of
the Historical Manuscripts Commission, etc.)
INDEX
Abercorn, James, Earl of, I, 130
Adams, John, II, 13, 170-1
Addington, Dr. Anthony, II, 59, 214
--, Henry, I, 186;
II, 81 note, 30, 261, 265
Adelaide, Queen, II, 244
Adolphus, Prince (son of George III). _See_ Cambridge, Duke of
--, John, I, 164, 278 note, 289;
II, 50 note
Albemarle, Lord, II, 42
Alfred, Prince (son of George III), II, 237
Amelia, Princess (daughter of George III), II, 237 note, 241,
274, 277, 282-3, 287
--, Princess (daughter of George II), I, 3, 4, 82, 144;
II, 30-1
American Colonies, II, 1-10;
repeal of the Stamp Act, a great victory, II, 126;
popular enthusiasm, _ibid._;
unpopularity of the Declaratory Act, 127;
The Mutiny Act, 128;
want of wisdom and tact of English ministers towards the Colonies, 128;
Townshend brings forward fresh taxing measures, 129, 130, 131;
seizure of the _Liberty_, 134;
Appointment of Lord Hillsborough as Secretary of State for America, 135;
arrival of troops in the Colonies, 136;
Grafton suggests repeal of the import duties, 137;
North proposes that duty on tea should be retained, 138;
tea duty riot at Boston, 138;
petition of the Colonies to the King, 139, 140;
flinging of the tea into Boston harbour, 141;
the Boston Port Bill, 141, 142;
no anxiety in England, 143;
the Colonies in open rebellion, 144;
battle of Lexington, 145;
Bunker's Hill, 147;
capture of New York by Howe, 147;
Burgoyne's success at Philadelphia 147;
Battle of Saratoga, 148;
mismanagement of the English troops, 152, 153;
Lord North's plan of conciliation, 155;
general feeling in England as to the impossibility to conquer America,
158;
the Duke of Richmond moves the independence of America, 160;
Chatham makes a dying speech in protest, 161;
victory of Cornwallis, 165;
surrender of York town, 165;
negotiations of Rockingham and Shelburne with the States, 170;
treaty signed, _ibid._
Amherst, Sir Jeffrey, II, 66
Ancaster, Duchess of, I, 128, 207, 232
--, Duke of, I, 291
Andrews, Rev. --, I, 169
Anne, Princess (daughter of George II), I, 4, 8, 9
Anson, Lord, I, 154
Anstey, Christopher, II, 13
Argyll, Duke of, I, 21 note
Astley, Sir Edward, II, 79
Auckland, Earl of, II, 264, 279
Augusta, Princess (sister of George III), afterwards Duchess of
Brunswick, I, 14, 230;
II, 99, 120-3
--, Princess (daughter of George III), I, 51, 56, 74;
II, 237 note, 240, 241, 254, 262, 274
--, (wife of Frederick, Prince of Wales). _See_ Wales, Princess Dowager of
Augustus, Prince (son of George III). _See_ Sussex, Duke of
Axford, Isaac, I, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100
Aylesbury, Earl of, I, 21 note
Aylesford, Earl of, I, 21 note
Ayrton, Dr., II, 209
Ayscough, Dr. Francis, I, 35, 36
Bach, Madame, I, 223
Baillie, Dr. Matthew, II, 277
Baker, Sir George, II, 205, 207, 208, 212, 219, 227, 233
Baltimore, Lord, I, 12, 18, 33 note
Bancroft, George, II, 135, 136
Banks, Sir Joseph, I, 82, 191
Barclay, Robert, I, 169
Barré, Colonel Isaac, I, 277;
II, 5, 14, 34
Barrymore, Earl of, I, 21 note
Bartlett, Miss, I, 92
Bateman, Lord, I, 181
Bathurst, Lord, I, 69
Beattie, James, I, 192
Beaufort, Duke of, I, 21 note;
II, 70
Beckford, William (Lord Mayor), I, 150, 152, 266-7, 272;
II, 4, 5
--, William, junr., I, 187, 190
Bedford, John, Duke of, I, 21 note, 148, 162, 276, 277, 282, 283, 285, 291;
II, 50 note, 136-7
Bentinck, Lady Harriet, I, 134 note
Bernard, Sir Francis, II, 16, 135, 136
Bertie, Lord Robert, I, 37
Bessborough, Earl of, II, 50 note
Betterton, Mrs., I, 221
Betts, Mr., I, 28
Bladen, Colonel, II, 7 note
Blake, William, I, 193
Bolingbroke, Henry, Viscount, I, 21, 36, 207
Bolton, Harry, Duke of, II, 95
Boswell, James, I, 143, 160
Bridgwater, Duke of, I, 21 note
Bristol, Lord, II, 60
Brougham, Henry, Baron, II, 30-1, 89
Brown, Launcelot, I, 202 note
Brudenel, Hon. James, I, 69
Brunswick, Adolphus, Duke of, I, 127
--, Augusta, Duchess of. _See_ Augusta, Princess
--, Charles, Duke of, II, 120-3
Buckingham, Lady, I, 177
Buckinghamshire, Lord, II, 279
Buggins, Lady Cecilia. _See_ Underwood
Bunbury, Lady Sarah. _See_ Lennox
--, Sir Thomas Charles, I, 117
Buononcini, I, 9
Burgoyne, General John, II, 83, 147
Burke, Edmund, I, 8, 285, 286;
II, 4, 22, 22 note, 25, 45, 49, 75, 78, 114, 129, 137, 161, 178, 180,
187, 189, 190, 190 note, 191, 196, 197, 226 note
Burney, Dr. Charles, I, 213
--, Frances, I, 209, 210, 211-16, 222, 223, 227, 230-1, 233;
II, 204, 207, 211, 218, 229-30, 246, 252-3, 255
Burns, Robert, I, 55-6
Bute, Lord, I, 43, first meeting with Frederick Prince of Wales, 44;
his ascendency 45;
much detested, 46, 47;
character according to Walpole, 48;
alleged intimacy with the Princess Dowager, 47, 48, 49;
his absolutist theories, 49, 50;
appointed groom of the stole, 68;
prepares the King's first speech, 137-138;
introduces a bill to secure the judges in their office for life, 141,;
advises King to cede prize money, 143;
his ascendency, 144;
made ranger of Richmond park, 144;
suspicion of the City of London, 144, 145;
scheme to place at head of affairs, 146;
unpopularity of, 150;
his henchmen attack Pitt, 150;
violently attacked in the city, 152;
becomes first Lord of the Treasury, 154;
great feeling against him, 156, 157;
his inordinate craving for power, 158, his patronage of literature, 159;
his employment of bribery, 160;
introduces a cyder tax, 163;
resigns, _ibid._;
his character and failings, 164, 165;
founds the "Auditor" and the "Briton," 235;
negotiations with the king over a coalition government, 273, 276;
great unpopularity with the Whigs, 289;
II, 27, 28, 29
Byron, George, Lord, I, xiii, 172, 268;
II, 13, 90, 93, 290
Calcraft, John, I, 277
Calderwood, Mrs., I, 104
Cambridge, Adolphus, Duke of, II, 237 note, 243, 287
Camden, Charles, Earl of, I, 85, 239, 252, 287;
II, 24, 33, 48, 69-70, 143 note, 163
Campbell, Lady Archibald, I, 12, 14
--, Colonel, I, 183
--, Lord Frederick, I, 291
Cantalupe, Lord, I, 207 note
Cantilo, Miss, I, 223
Carhampton, Earl of, II, 109
Carlisle, Henry, Earl of, I, 21 note
--, Frederick, Earl of, I, 196, 226;
II, 53, 146, 155, 204
Carlyle, Thomas, I, 2-3
Carnarvon, Marquis of, I, 21 note, 35 note, 181
Caroline, Queen (Consort of George II), I, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 30
-- Matilda, Princess (sister of George III), Queen of Denmark, II, 99,
112, 123-5
Carpenter, Lady Almeria, II, 100 note, 118
Carteret, John, I, 21
Catherine II, Empress of Russia, I, 195
Cave, Edward, I, 22
Cavendish, Lord George, I, 273
--, Lord John, II, 190
Chambers, Sir William, I, 75, 204, 205
Charles Edward (Young Pretender), I, 31, 140, 141, 141 note
Charlotte, Queen (Consort of George III), letter to King of Prussia, I,
121, 122;
extreme simplicity of her training, 126, 127;
formal betrothal, 127;
leaves Strelitz, 128;
arrives at Harwich, 129;
progress to London, 130;
arrives at the Palace, 131;
description of personal appearance, 132, 133, 134;
her Puritanism, 198;
in her early married life little better than a prisoner, 206;
which causes a certain bitterness in her character, 208;
influence of Mdlle. Schwellenberg, 209;
dislike of Fanny Burney, 211-213;
the Queen takes English lessons, 220, 221;
fond of the theatre, 222, 223;
her anxiety for her children, 226, 227;
interests herself in trinkets, 227;
not popular with her subjects, 227, 228;
her domineering spirit, 229, 230;
no endearing qualities, 231;
a hard woman, 232;
becomes patroness of the Magdalen Hospital, _ibid._;
concern at the King's illness, II, 209, 211, 212;
opposition to the Prince of Wales, 247;
amusing encounter with Colonel Landmann, 255-257;
illness and death, 289, 290
Charlotte, Princess (daughter of George III). _See_ Wurtemberg, Queen of
-- of Brunswick, Princess (afterwards Queen Charlotte, Consort of
George IV), II, 123, 264, 268
-- of Wales, Princess, II, 81 note, 241, 288
Chatham, William, Earl of. _See_ Pitt
--, John, Earl of, II, 145
Chesterfield, Philip, Fourth Earl of, I, 9, 21, 48, 85, 158, 199,
225-6, 228;
II, 39
--, Philip, Fifth Earl of, I, 168;
II, 254
Churchill, Charles, I, 235, 238, 241-3, 244 note, 247-8, 248-9
Christian VII, King of Denmark, II, 123-5
Christina of Brunswick, Princess, I, 127 note
Chudleigh, Elizabeth, I, 90, 91, 157, 157 note
Clarence, Adelaide, Duchess of. _See_ Adelaide, Queen
--, William, Duke of. _See_ William IV
Clarke, Mary Anne, II, 249, 276
Clements, Mrs., II, 104
Cobham, Richard, Viscount, I, 21
Coke, Lady Mary, II, 100-1
Colchester, Lord, II, 289
Colville, Admiral Lord, II, 16
Conway, Henry Seymour, II, 4, 14, 24, 24 note, 33, 37, 48, 79, 169
Cooke, George, I, 255
Coote, Sir Eyre, II, 174
Cornwallis, Charles, Marquis of, II, 165, 184
--, Frederick (Archbishop of Canterbury), I, 171-2
Costard, George, I, 28
Courtoun, Lady, II, 254
--, Lord, II, 254
Coventry, Earl of, I, 21 note;
II, 70
Creevey, Thomas, II, 270, 279
Cresset, Mr., I, 38, 39
Crosdill, John, I, 223
Cumberland, Anne, Duchess of, II, 109-11, 113, 117, 243
--, Ernest, Duke of, I, 77;
II, 237 note, 244-5, 249-250
--, Henry, Duke of, I, 22 note, 102 note, 103;
II, 99, 103, 106, 107-11, 117, 117 note, 119-20, 121, 244
--, William, Duke of, I, 58-61, 82, 282, 284, 288, 290, 292, 293, 294;
II, 30, 202-3
Dalkeith, Lady, I, 228 note
Dance (painter), I, 195-6
Darnley, Earl of, I, 21 note
Dartmouth, Earl of, II, 139, 145
Dashwood, Catherine, I, 206, 206 note
--, Sir Francis. _See_ Le Despencer, Lord
De Bouille, Marquis, II, 174
De Chatelet, M., II, 136
De Choiseul, Duc, II, 133, 136
De Dieden, M., II, 124
De Grabow, Mme., I, 126
De Herzfeldt, Madame, II, 123
De Kalb, II, 133, 134
De Villars, Duc, II, 101
Delany, Mrs., I, 201, 213, 234, 259;
II, 203 note
Dempster, Dr., I, 156
Denbigh, Basil, Earl of, I, 21 note, 164;
II, 38
Derby, Earl of, I, 21 note;
II, 186
Desbrowe, Colonel, I, 133
Desnoyers, I, 27
Devonshire, William, Duke of, I, 273
--, Fifth Duke of, I, 291
Dickinson, II, 128
Digby, Lord, I, 69
Dodington, George Bubb, I, 7, 41, 71, 72, 74, 145
Doran, John, I, 60, 100
Dorset, Duke of, II, 173
Dowdeswell, William, II, 78
Downe, Lord, I, 37
Dubourgay, I, 4
Duncan, Sir William, I, 277
Dundas, Sir Lawrence, II, 37
--, Henry, I, 263
Dunning, John, II, 70
Dyson, Jeremiah, II, 39, 54, 55
Eden, William, II, 155
Edgcombe, Lord, II, 50
Edward, Prince (brother of George III). _See_ York, Duke of
--, Prince (son of George III). _See_ Kent, Duke of
Edwin, Lady Charlotte, I, 33 note
Effingham, Countess of, I, 207; II, 207
--, Earl of, II, 145
Eglington, Alexander, Earl of, II, 54
Egremont, Countess of, I, 207
--, Earl of, I, 153, 154, 238, 239, 240, 258
Eldon, John, Earl of, II, 260
Elizabeth, Princess (daughter of George III). _See_ Hesse-Homburg,
Landgravine of
Ellenborough, Lord, II, 280
Elliott, Sir Gilbert, II, 83, 207-8
Ellis, Welbore, II, 179
Elliston, Robert, I, 223
Ernest, Prince (son of George III). _See_ Cumberland, Duke of
Erskine, Sir Harry, I, 272
Essex, Charlotte, Countess of, II, 99
--, William, Earl of, I, 15
Euston, Lord, I, 69
Evans, Mr., I, 28
Fauconberg, Earl of, II, 207
Fitzherbert, Mrs., I, 98, 100, 103;
II, 115 note
Fitzroy, General, II, 241, 274, 283
Fitzwilliam, Lord, II, 193
Fox, Charles James, I, xiii, 81, 107, 115;
II, 24, 75, 85, 114, 146, 158, 161, 168, 178, 179-90, 191-2, 194, 196,
197, 198, 199, 222, 224-5, 231, 258, 261, 262
--, Henry. _See_ Holland, Baron
--, Lady Caroline, I, 106
Franklin, Benjamin, II, 11, 23, 132, 133, 146
Frederick, Prince of Wales, born at Hanover, I, 1;
unpopular with his parents, 2;
early project to marry him to Wilhelmina of Prussia, I, 2-4;
arrival in England, 5;
quarrels with his parents, _ibid._;
fault not entirely his, 6;
his debts, 6, 7;
throws his lot in with the opposition, 8;
his jealousy of the Princess Royal, 9;
marriage, 10;
intrigue with Anne Vane, 11, 12;
with Lady Archibald Hamilton, 11, 12;
with Lady Middlesex, 12;
his debts, 13;
birth of the Princess Augusta, 14;
subsequent quarrel at Prince's behaviour thereover, 14-20;
banished from Court, 20;
his attempts to gain popularity, 21;
a patron of manufactures and arts, I, 21, 22;
popular with the mob, 23, 24;
Walpole's attempt to bring about a reconciliation, 24;
whose offer is refused, 25;
reconciliation with George II, 26;
his death, 27;
contemporary opinion of him, 28;
posthumous opinion, 30-32.
Frederick I, King of Sweden, I, 33 note
-- the Great, II, 121-3, 149
--, Prince (brother of George III), I, 22 note;
II, 98
--, Prince (son of George III). _See_ York, Duke of
Freeman, Dr., I, 22
Gage, General, II, 142, 145, 158
Galt, John, I, 23, 34, 73, 75, 80, 131, 136, 182;
II, 2, 31, 201
Garrick, David, I, 179-80
Garth, Colonel, II, 249, 254
--, General, II, 260
Gates, General, II, 165
George I. I, 1, 139, 140, 257
George II. I, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16-18, 19, 20, 24, 39, 40, 55,
56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 74, 105, 106, 139, 140, 257
George III. Character, I, ix-xv, Birth, I, 33, 34;
education begins when scarcely six years old, 35;
placed under Dr. Ayscough, who was the wrong man for the place, 35, 36;
George Scott appointed, 36;
Lord North becomes governor, 36, 37;
household of the young prince, 37;
dissension in the tutor's camp, 38-40;
Dr. Thomas appointed preceptor, 42;
Lord Waldegrave appointed governor, _ibid._;
influence of Lord Bute, 49, 50, 53;
close vigilance of his mother, I, 51;
her strictness, 52;
titles bestowed on the death of his father, 55;
George II takes some interest in the heir-apparent, 56;
question of appointing a regent, 58;
Duke of Cumberland proposed and unpopularity thereof, 59;
alarm of George II at the tameness of his disposition, 62;
marriage proposal, 62, 63;
indignation of the Princess Dowager, 63;
machinations to prevent marriage, 63, 64;
fury of George II, _ibid._;
attempt of ministers to withdraw Prince from maternal influence, 68;
royal grant given of £40,000, but Prince refuses to leave his mother, 66;
ministers nonplussed, 66, 67;
desires Lord Bute to be made groom of the stole, 67;
dismissal of Lord Waldegrave, 68;
reorganisation of the Prince's establishment, 69;
succeeds to the throne, 71;
poor equipment and education for the high office, and his homely
tastes, 71-80;
early love for agriculture, 75;
very untravelled, 76;
ill effects of the isolation of his youth, 77, 78;
his good qualities, 80;
strong prejudices, 81;
astonishing aptitude for King-craft, _ibid._;
popular at his accession, 82, 83;
alleged connection with Hannah Lightfoot, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
92, 94, 96;
alleged marriage with her, 97, 98, 99, 100;
"Appeal for Royalty" documents a forgery, 101, 102;
examination of the Lightfoot claim, 103, 104;
infatuation for Lady Sarah Lennox, 105, 106;
alarm of the Princess Dowager, 107;
connivance of Fox, to whose interest the marriage would be, 108, 109;
the King takes Lady Susan Fox Strangways into his confidence, 110;
rumour of a
Brunswick marriage, 102;
alleged proposal at a dance to Lady Sarah Lennox, 112;
announcement of
marriage to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 113;
discussion as to reason for rejecting Lady Sarah, 114, 115;
after marriage the King still has an attachment for Lady Sarah, 117, 118;
the royal marriage, selection of Princess Charlotte, I, 121;
notifies his intention of marriage to the Privy Council, 124;
sends Lord Harcourt to demand formally the hand of Princess Charlotte,
126, 127;
treaty of marriage signed, 128;
arrival of Princess Charlotte at Harwich, 129;
the King disappointed at her appearance, 131;
speech to the nation, 136, 137, 138;
favourable reception of same, 138;
popular because English, 129;
on Bute's advice cedes prize money and accepts a settled income, 143;
ascendency of Lord Bute, 144, 146;
dismissal of Pitt, 148;
lampoons on the fall of the Great Commoner, 150;
the King and Queen in the city, 151, indifferent reception, 152;
resignation of the Duke of Newcastle, 154;
appointment of Lord Bute as First Lord of the Treasury, _ibid._;
his unpopularity at its zenith, 157, 158;
Bute, desirous of peace, compelled to make war, 161;
the cyder tax, 163;
resignation of Lord Bute, _ibid._;
deeply religious, 167, 168, 169;
visits Robert Barclay, the Quaker, 169;
friendly to Nonconformists but hates Roman Catholics, 170;
a high ideal for those in clerical orders, 171;
proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, 173, 174, 175;
strict
observance of the Sabbath, 175;
dullness of the Court, 176, 177;
not possessed of popular qualities, 178, 179;
very affable in the country, 179;
meets David Garrick, 180, his tactless remarks, 180;
his vein of humour, 181, 182, 183;
a great sense of regal dignity, 185;
takes himself with great seriousness, 186;
a stickler for etiquette, 186, 187, 188;
reputation for stupidity, 189, 190;
the dispute over the lightning conductor, 191;
some liking for art, 191, 192;
a patron of literature, 193;
founds a library, 193, 194;
his patronage, 194, 195;
not generous, 196;
unpopularity of the Court due to parsimony, 198, 199, 200;
seeks a more secluded residence, 202;
purchases Buckingham House, 203;
elaborate preparations, 204;
known henceforth as the Queen's House, _ibid._;
his residence at Richmond Lodge and improvements, 204, 205;
prison-like seclusion of the Queen, 206, 207;
Mdlle. Swellenberg 208-210;
Frances Burney, 212, 213;
private life of the King and Queen very dull, 216, 222, 223;
takes an active interest in the domestic economy of the palaces, 218;
abuse of tipping, 219;
quaintness of the internal management of the palace, 219, 220;
his daily life, 224, 225;
stricter rearing of the royal children, 226-227;
publications of "The North Briton," No. xlv, 236;
violent attack on the ministers, 237;
anger of the King, _ibid._;
issues a warrant, and printer and publisher are arrested, 238;
arrest of Wilkes, _ibid._;
set at liberty, 239;
but is dismissed from the Buckinghamshire militia, 240;
meeting of Parliament in 1763 and the "Essay on Woman," 248;
the House orders No. xlv to be burnt by the common hangman, 249;
duel between Wilkes and Martin, 249;
Parliament outlaws Wilkes for contumacy, 251;
popularity of Wilkes, 252, 253;
elected for Middlesex, 255;
expelled from Parliament and re-elected, 256;
deeply incensed at Wilkes's popularity, 257;
his courage in politics, 257;
attack on his life by Margaret Nicholson, 258;
his bravery, 259;
second attempt on his life, 259, 260;
third attempt, 263, 264, 265;
reconciliation with Wilkes, 268;
places Grenville at the Treasury, 269;
his regard for him, 270;
discovers too late that Grenville is a hard task-master, 270, 271;
makes strenuous efforts to free himself, 272;
suggests a coalition to Lord Bute, 272;
his antipathy to the Whigs, 273;
sends for Pitt, 274;
forced to ask Grenville to remain in office, 275;
endeavours to sow dissension among the Whigs, 276;
offends the Duke of Bedford, 277;
taken ill, 277;
first indications of mental derangement, 278, 279, 280;
recovery, 281;
Regency Bill, 281, 282;
intrigue to omit the name of Princess Dowager from the Regency Council,
283, 284;
indignation thereover with Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich, 284;
negotiates through the Duke of Cumberland, for the return of the Whigs,
284, 285;
Pitt only man able to form a strong administration, 286;
Grenville offers resignation, 287;
Pitt approached, 287;
failure of negotiations 288;
recall of Grenville, 288;
the King furious at the minister's terms, 289, 290;
fresh overtures to Pitt, 293, 294;
as a last resource Lord Rockingham offered office, 295;
desires to tax the American colonies, II, 1-4;
the Stamp Act, 3-4, 11;
mismanagement of American colonies, 4-9;
outcry in the colonies at the passing of the Stamp Act, 13;
mob destroy the Stamp office, 15;
the day the Stamp Act comes into force kept as a day of mourning, 16;
the King seriously alarmed at the trouble in America, 18;
Pitt attacks Stamp Act, 19-23;
repeal of the Stamp Act, 25;
Whigs mistrust Bute, 26, 27, 29-32;
surprise of the nation at the appointment of Rockingham, 32;
a weak administration, 32, 33;
his difficulties, 35, 36;
intrigues against the ministry, 37, 38;
defeat of the government in the House of Lords, 39;
Rockingham remonstrates against Court intrigue, 40, 41, 42;
Rockingham ministry falls, 44;
the King sends for Pitt, II, 46;
forms ministry, 47, 48;
enthusiasm of the people for Pitt, 49;
Pitt accepts earldom, 50;
unpopularity of the step, _ibid._;
his desire to rule, 51;
the King's "Friends," 52;
the health of Chatham, 56-58;
during Chatham's illness leadership devolved on Grafton, 61;
character of Grafton, 61;
attempt to alienate him from Chatham, 62-64;
Grafton becomes Prime Minister, 65;
anger of Chatham, 66;
the city remonstrance, 67;
chancellorship and death of Charles Yorke, 71;
resignation of Grafton, 72;
North takes office, II, 73, 74;
refuses to dissolve Parliament, 76;
undertakes management of the House of Commons, 77;
reduces bribery to a fine art, 77, 78;
regards himself as above criticism, 79;
his debts, 79, 80;
rebuke of Parliament, 80;
North's scandalous loan, 81;
no scruples for kingly dignity, 82, 83;
his vindictiveness, 84, 85;
tenacious of his promises, 86;
in his kingly office the slave of deep rooted selfishness, 88;
his inability to act wisely, 89, 90;
North frequently tenders resignation, 91, 92;
the King ever against liberty, 92-93;
persecution of Admiral Keppel, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97;
family worries, 98-126;
his brothers' love of pleasure, 100-103;
secret marriage of William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, II, 106, 115;
dissipation and debts of Henry, Duke of Cumberland, II, 107-109;
secret marriage of the Duke, 111;
Royal Marriage Act, 111-113;
scandal concerning Caroline of Denmark, 112, 123;
Dukes' wives not received, 116, 117;
reconciliation with Duke of Cumberland, II, 119;
marriage of Princess Augusta, 122, 133;
endeavours to reassert his dignity in the American colonies, 129;
Townshend's Act, 131;
petitions from the colonies, 134, 139;
in spite of lessons he redoubles his anti-colonial policy, 139;
sanctions the Boston Port Bill, 141, 142;
open rebellion of the colonies, 145;
purchase of Hessian troops, 149;
Chatham the hope of the nation, 152;
North's plan of conciliation, 155, 156;
failure of the Commission, 156;
negotiations with Chatham, 156;
death of Chatham and his ungenerous conduct, 161;
still determined to pursue the war, 163, 164;
North makes another effort to retire, 164;
increase of his influence in Parliament, 165;
surrender of Yorktown, 161;
Fox proposes a committee to consider peace, 169;
treaty with United States signed, 170;
reception of John Adams, 170, 171, 172;
resignation of North, 175;
unwilling to place himself in the hands of the opposition, 175-178;
arranges an administration with Shelburne, 178;
rise of Fox, 180, 181;
his undying enmity for him, 182, 183;
who regards Fox's speech as a declaration of war against himself, 184;
attempts to sow the seed of discord in the cabinet, 186, 187;
ill-feeling between Shelburne and Fox, 188;
death of Lord Rockingham, 189;
resignation of Fox, Burke, Portland, and Lord John Cavendish, 190;
first speech of William Pitt, 190, 191; opens Parliament, 192;
the Coalition, 194;
invites Pitt to form a ministry, who refuses, 195;
Fox's India Bill, 197, 198;
ministry dismissed, 199, 200;
sends for Pitt, 200;
prorogation of Parliament, election, and overwhelming majority of Pitt,
201;
his fear of becoming corpulent, 202;
his temperance, 203-205;
breakdown of his health, 205, 206;
goes to Cheltenham, 207;
disorder increases, 207;
sudden illness, 208, 209;
account of Philip Withers, 209, 210, 211;
complete madness, 213;
removal to Kew, 215, 216;
placed under the care of Dr. Willis, 216, 219;
his treatment, 220;
examination as to the state of his health before the Privy Council, 223;
debate on the Regency Bill, 224, 225;
improvement of his condition, 227, 228;
infatuation for Lady Pembroke, 229;
continued improvement of his health, 230;
the last bulletin, 233;
joy of London at his recovery, 234-236;
trouble with his children, 237-250;
Princess Royal, 238, 239;
Princesses Augusta and Sophia, 241;
Princess Elizabeth marries the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, 241-242;
all his sons wild, 243;
Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge give least cause for anxiety, 243;
Dukes of Clarence and Kent, II, 244;
not on friendly terms with his sons, 244;
conduct of the Prince of Wales, 245, 246;
dissipations of the Duke of York, 248, 249;
scandalous life of the Duke of Cumberland, 249, 250;
his popularity after his illness, 251, 252, 253, 255;
visits to Weymouth, 254, 255, 256;
Colonel Landmann and the Queen, 256, 257;
ascendency of Pitt, 258;
dismissal of Thurlow, 259;
Catholic Emancipation, 260, 261;
resignation of Pitt, 261;
death of Pitt, 261;
return of Fox to power, 261-262;
health again an anxiety, 263, 264, 265;
Dr. Willis called in, 265;
troubled about the Princess of Wales, 268;
illness ages him, _ibid._;
at Windsor, 269, 270;
recovers 270;
increasing deafness and defective sight, 272;
daily life at Windsor, 273, 274;
sight gives way, 275;
the Walcheren expedition, 276;
"Duke and Darling" scandal, 276;
death of Princess Amelia, 277;
again insane, 278-282;
will of Princess Amelia, 282;
arrangements for comfort, 284, 285;
his delusions, 286, 287;
illness of Queen Charlotte, 289;
her death, 290; his death, 290-292
George IV, I, x, 98, 100, 103, 104;
II, 81 note, 103, 110, 115 note, 119, 186, 195 note, 197, 212, 222,
225, 226, 237 note, 244, 245-8, 264, 269, 283
Germaine, Lord George. _See_ Sackville, George
Gibbon, Edward, I, 194;
II, 118, 142, 148, 161
Gillray, James, II, 251
Gisborne, Dr., II, 219, 224, 268
Gloucester, Maria, Duchess of, I, 103;
II, 104-7, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119
-- , Mary, Duchess of, II, 116 note, 237 note, 283
-- , William Frederick, Duke of, II, 116 note, 241
-- , William Henry, Duke of, I, 22 note;
II, 99, 100 note, 103-7, 115-19
Glover, Richard, I, 31
Goupy, M., I, 196
Gower, Lord, II, 55, 167, 177, 194
Graeme, Colonel, I, 120-21; II, 37
Grafton, Augustus, Duke of, I, 68, 116, 165, 273;
II, 33, 44, 48, 57, 58, 61-4, 65, 66, 69, 72, 74, 130, 138
Graham, Lord, II, 198 note
-- , Mr. Baron, I, 181-2
Granby, Marquis of, I, 290;
II, 68, 70, 87
Grantham, Lord, I, 18;
II, 190
Granville, Miss, I, 12
Grenville, George, I, xi, 65, 65 note, 148, 154, 236, 269, 277, 279, 283,
285, 286-7, 288, 288 note, 289-294;
II, 3-4, 6, 7, 11, 18, 22, 26, 29, 40, 42, 59, 73, 78, 86, 129
Grenville, George (first Marquis of Buckingham), II, 151
-- , Hester, I, 65 note
-- , James, I, 65, 65 note, 148;
II, 33, 59, 70
-- , Mrs., I, 228 note
-- , William, Baron, II, 220-221, 258, 261
Greville, Lady Louisa, I, 134 note
Gronard, Earl of, I, 21 note
Grosvenor, Henrietta, Lady, II, 107, 109
-- , Lord, II, 107
Gwyn, Colonel, II, 254, 255
Haggersdorn, Mrs., I, 208
Halford, Sir Henry, II, 277, 280, 281, 282, 287
Halifax, George, Earl of, I, 155, 165, 237, 238, 239, 240, 282, 283, 292
Hamilton, Lady Anne, I, 131-2, 134 note
-- , Lady Archibald, I, 11, 13
-- , Duchess of, I, 128, 131, 207
Hancock, John, II, 134
Handel, George Friedrich, I, 9;
II, 276
Hanway, Jonas, I, 218
Harcourt, Colonel, II, 254, 270
-- , Lady Elizabeth, I, 134 note
-- , Simon, Earl of, I, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 125, 127, 219
Hardinge, George, II, 251
Hardwicke, Philip, Earl of, I, 66, 138, 146, 147, 148, 269, 272, 280;
II, 29, 39, 44
Hartington, Lord, I, 11, 37
Harvey, Mary, Lady, I, 83
Hastings, Warren, II, 197, 258
Hatfield, James, I, 265
Hayter, Dr. Thomas, Bishop of Norwich, II, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40 note, 41
Heberden, Dr., II, 206
Henley, Lady, II, 272
-- , Lord, II, 272
Henry, Prince (brother of George III). _See_ Cumberland, Duke of
-- , Patrick, II, 13, 14
Hervey, John, Lord, I, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 29
Hertford, Francis, Marquis of, I, 123
Hesse-Cassel, Wilhelmina, Princess of, II, 243
Hesse-Homberg, Elizabeth, Landgravine of, I, 51, 117;
II, 237 note, 240, 241-2, 254, 265 286, 288
-- , Landgrave of, II, 241-2
Hillsborough, Earl of, II, 139
Hinchinbrook, Lord, II, 173
Hogarth, William, I, 241-3;
II, 241
Holdernesse, Lord, I, 145, 146, 147
Holland, Henry, Baron, I, 106-7, 108, 111-12, 111 note, 113, 115,
148, 163, 165, 177, 280, 289, 290 293;
II, 180, 195 note
Home, John, I, 160, 192 note
Hotham, Sir Charles, I, 4
Horton, Lady Anne. _See_ Cumberland, Duchess of
Howard, Mrs., I, 12
Howe, General, II, 145, 147
Huish, Robert, I, 47, 56, 65, 78, 88-9, 121, 144, 159, 205, 218;
II, 190
Hume, David, II, 68-9
Hunt, Leigh, I, 30, 229
Huntingdon, Lord, I, 69
-- , Selina, Countess of, I, 171
Huske, General, II, 8
Hutchinson, Thomas, II, 15, 142
Hyder Ali, II, 167, 174
Inchiquin, Earl of, I, 55
Inclagreen, Earl of, I, 21 note
Inverness, Cecilia, Duchess of. _See_ Underwood
JENKINSON, Charles, I, 47; II, 72 note
Jerningham, Lady, I, 262-3, 264;
II, 275, 286
Jersey, Lady, I, 198, 198 note
Jesse, J. H., I, ix. note, 104, 216;
II, 61, 117 note
Johnson, Dr. James, Bishop of Gloucester, I, 42
-- , Dr. Samuel, I, 84, 142-3, 160, 160 note, 187-8;
II, 22 note
Johnstone, George, II, 155
"Junius," I, 53, 77, 108, 162, 243 note;
II, 22, 52, 60, 63, 64, 66, 71, 72, 93, 132-3
Jordan, Dora, II, 244
Kearsley, I, 252
Keats, John, I, xiii
Keith, Rev. Alexander, I, 96, 97
Kent, Edward, Duke of, II, 109, 237 note, 244
Kenyon, Lord, I, 182
Keppel, Admiral, I, xii;
II, 50 note, 93-97, 178, 190
--, General, I, 291
--, Lady Elizabeth, I, 134 note
Kerr, Lady Elizabeth, I, 134 note
Kidgell, John, I, 245
Kildare, Lady, I, 106
--, Duchess of, II, 244
Kingsale, Lord, I, 185
Knight, Charles, I, 172 note
Kuffe, Mr., II, 204
Landmann, Colonel, I, 183-4;
II, 252, 255-256
Launay, Colonel, I, 4
Lawrence, Thomas, I, 195
Le Despencer, Francis, Baron, I, 154, 154 note, 163, 165, 244, 244 note,
248;
II, 54
Lecky, W. E. H., I, 255, 270, 276;
II, 151-2, 167
Leiningen, Princess of. _See_ Kent, Duchess of
Lennox, Lady Sarah, I, 105-119, 134 note, 221, 292;
II, 6, 96, 97, 101, 104-5, 117, 122, 198 note, 199, 266
Lightfoot, Hannah, I, 86-104
Litchfield, Earl of, I, 21 note
Loughborough, Alexander, Baron, I, 160 note;
II, 180, 183
Louis Philippe, II, 240
-- XV, King of France, II, 102
Louisa Anne, Princess (sister of George III), I, 22 note;
II, 98
Lowther, Sir James, I, 129
Luttrell, Lady Anne. _See_ Cumberland, Duchess of
--, Colonel, II, 256
Lyttelton, George, Baron, I, 35, 36, 288, 288 note;
II, 33
Macaulay, Lord, I, 212, 213;
II, 22, 65 note
Macclesfield, Earl of, I, 21 note
Macdonald, Chief Baron, I, 181-2
--, Flora, I, 31
Mackenzie, Stuart, I, 284 note, 289, 289 note, 290-1, 292
Macpherson, James, I, 160
Mahon, Lord, II, 150, 160
Majendie, Dr., I, 220
Mallet, David, I, 160
Malmesbury, James, Earl of, II, 269, 289
Manchester, Duke of, I, 207;
II, 70
Manners, Col., I, 181, 216;
II, 274
Mansfield, William, Earl of, I, 39, 255;
II, 22, 27 note, 70, 133
Mara, Madame, I, 120
March William, Earl of. _See_ Queensberry, Duke of
Marie Amélie, Princess, of Naples, II, 241
Marlborough, Sarah, Duchess of, I, 13
Martin, Samuel, I, 249, 250
Mary, Princess (daughter of George III). _See_ Gloucester, Duchess of
Masham, Hon. S., I, 69
Massey, W. N., I, 230
Mayhew, Rev. --, II, 15
McCarthy, Justin, I, 23, 28, 104
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Duke of, I, 199 note
--, Prince Charles of, I, 199 note
--, Prince George of, I, 119
Meredith, Sir William, II, 50 note
Middlesex, Lady, I, 12
Monaco, Prince of, II, 101-2
Monson, Lord, II, 50 note
Montagu, Mary Wortley, I, 43
Montague Lady Caroline, I, 134 note
Montrose, Duke of, II, 198 note
Mountstuart, Lord, II, 29-30, 39
Munro, Dr., II, 206
Murphy, Arthur, I, 160
Murray, Lady Augusta, II, 243
--, Charles, I, 222
--, William. _See_ Mansfield, Earl of
Napier, Henry, I, 113
-- Lady Sarah. _See_ Lennox
--, Hon. George, I, 117
--, William, I, 117
--, Sir Charles, I, 117, 117 note
Napoleon, II, 252, 288
Nelson, Horatio, Lord, I, xiii
Nepian, Sir Evan, II, 199-200
Newbattle, John, Lord, I, 111
Newcastle, Thomas, Duke of, I, xi, 58, 66, 136, 146, 147, 153, 272, 273;
II, 6, 33, 50 note, 52, 121
Nicholls, John, I, 50, 83, 141-2, 147, 269, 279;
II, 2, 36, 61-2, 113, 128, 129, 143, 184, 258
Nicholson, Margaret, I, 258
Norfolk, Duke of, I, 20
North, Frederick, Lord, I, 104, 257;
II, 53, 72-6, 78-84, 90, 91, 95, 108, 112, 114, 135, 137, 138, 142, 143,
148, 155, 156, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 167 note, 170, 173, 175,
178-9, 180, 181, 183, 193-4, 196, 197, 199, 200
--, Francis, Baron, I, 36, 37
--, Colonel, II, 200
Northumberland, Lady. I, 207, 220
--, Lord, II, 27 note
Nugent Lord, II, 190, 191
Nuthall, Thomas, II, 19, 33
Octavius, Prince (son of George III), I, 191;
II, 237 note
Offley, John, II, 41
Oliver, Andrew, II, 15
Ongley, Mr., I, 263
Onslow, George, II, 25
--, Lord, I, 259, 260
Orange, Prince of, I, 8
Otis, James, II, 8, 13, 134-5
Owen, Robert, II, 109 note
Oxford, Earl of, I, 21
Paine, Thomas, I, 172 note
Palliser, Sir Hugh, II, 94
Papendiek, Mrs., I, 132-3, 195;
II, 206, 218, 229, 245-6, 289
Parsons, Nancy, II, 62, 63, 64
Paton, Richard, I, 194
Pembroke, Elizabeth, Lady, II, 280
--, Lord, I, 69
Pepys, Sir Lucas, II, 213, 214, 219, 233, 234
Perceval, Spencer, II, 278, 282
Perryn, Mrs., I, 90, 91
"Pindar, Peter," I, 81, 82, 187, 189-90, 191, 192, 194-5, 196, 198,
200-1, 210 note;
II, 251
Pitt, Thomas, 110
Pitt, William, Earl of Chatham, I, 147;
Dismissal of, 148;
Lampoons on his fall, 150;
popularity, 151, 152;
goes to the Commons to protest against the treaty, 161;
the King sends for him, 274;
again approached, 285, 287, 294;
opposed to Rockingham, II, 34, 35;
forms "mosaic ministry," 47, 50;
accepts Earldom of Chatham, 50;
ill-health, 56;
retires to Bath, _ibid._;
returns to London, 57;
tarries at Marlborough, 58;
complete collapse, _ibid._;
willingness to resign, 59;
tenders his resignation, 60;
war to the knife with Grafton, 66, 69;
the hope of the nation on the outbreak of the American war, 151, 156;
his opposition to it, 159;
dies denouncing it, 160
--, William, the Younger, I, xiii;
II, 84, 190-3, 197, 200-1, 218, 223, 224, 225, 226, 226 note, 227,
232-3, 248, 254, 258, 259, 260, 261, 264-5, 271
Pollock, Mr., II, 200
Pomfret, Lord, I, 164
Pope, Alexander, I, 22, 245
--, Mrs. (actress), I, 117, 222
Portland, Duke of, I, 255;
II, 48, 50 note, 92, 104, 189, 190, 194, 199
Potter, Thomas, I, 244-255
Pownall, Thomas, II, 137, 138
Pratt, Sir Charles. _See_ Camden
Pringle, Sir John, I, 191
Proctor, Sir William, I, 255
Prussia, Frederick, Princess of. _See_ York, Duchess of
Pulteney, Sir William, I, 21
Queensberry, Duchess of, I, 228 note
-- , William, Duke of, I, 185; II, 54, 185
Quick, John, I, 223
Quin, James, I, 73, 223
Ray, Dr., II, 218, 219
Rex, George, I, 95 note
-- , John, I, 95 note
Reynolds, Dr., II, 277
-- , Sir Joshua, I, 191, 193;
II, 118
Richmond, Charles, Duke of, I, 283;
II, 27, 28-9, 44, 87, 140-1, 160, 176-7, 178, 179
-- , Duchess of, II, 100
Rigby, Richard, I, 165, 274, 274 note;
II, 138
Robertson, William, I, 159
Robinson, Mrs. Mary Ann, I, 104
Rockingham, Charles, Marquis of, I, xi, xii, 146, 273, 295;
II, 2, 23, 24, 32, 34, 35, 39-45, 47, 48, 61, 66, 73, 74, 78, 86,
135-6, 158, 162, 176, 177, 178, 179, 189, 192
Rose, George, I, 69
Roxburgh, Duke of, I, 21 note, 127 note
Russell, Lady Caroline, I, 111 note, 134
Ryves, Mrs., I, 102, 102 note;
II, 109 note
Sackville, George, I, 145;
II, 39, 95, 145, 166
Sanderson, Robert, I, 169
Sandwich, Lord, I, 21 note, 244, 246, 248, 276, 282, 284, 291, 293;
II, 138-9
Saunders, Sir Charles, II, 48, 50 note
Saville, Sir George, II, 153
Saxe-Gotha, Duke of, I, 30 note, 80
Saxe-Meiningen, Adelaide Princess of. _See_ Adelaide, Queen
Scarborough, Earl of, I, 21 note;
II, 30 note
Schwellenberg Mddle., I, 208-12, 224
Scott, George, I, 36, 37, 38, 42, 69, 80, 104
Secker, Thomas (Archbishop of Canterbury), I, 25, 25 note
Sellis, II, 249
Selwyn, George, I, 182;
II, 145-6, 168, 185, 186, 214
-- , Col. John, I, 37
Serres, Mrs. Olivia, I, 102, 102 note;
II, 109 note
Shakespeare, William, I, 193
Sheffield, Sir John, I, 203
Shelburne, William, Lord, I, 276;
II, 34, 48, 177, 178, 178 note, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194
Shelley, Sir John, II, 50 note
-- , P. B., II, 243
Sheridan, R. B., I, 81, 265;
II, 121, 122
Sherlock, Thomas, I, 169
Siddons, Mrs., I, 187, 201, 223
Smelt, Mr., I, 212
Smollett, Tobias, I, 160, 235, 278 note
Sophia, Princess (daughter of George III), II, 237 note, 241, 274
-- , Princess of Brunswick, I, 62, 62 note, 63, 64, 88
-- , Dorothea of Prussia, I, 2-4
Southy, Robert, I, 27-8, 172;
II, 205 note
Spencer, Lady Diana, I, 7
Stanhope, Earl, I, 31
-- , Lady, II, 100
Stanley, John, I, 223
Stillingfleet, James, I, 28
St. Lourent, Mme., II, 244
Storer, Anthony, I, 182, 224 note;
II, 157, 163, 169, 191
Stone, Andrew, I, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 69, 207
Stowe, Mr., II, 27 note
Strange, Lord, II, 27, 39, 41-3
Strangways, Lady Susan Fox, I, 107, 109-10, 113, 134 note
Struensee, Count, II, 125
Stuart, James Archibald. _See_ Mackenzie
-- , Lady Mary, I, 129
Sunderland, Lord, I, 31
Sussex, Augustus, Duke of, I, 192;
II, 237 note, 243, 244
Swinton, Mr., I, 28
Symonds, Dr., II, 271
Talbot, Miss, 123-4
-- , William, Baron, I, 177, 178, 199;
II, 38
Taylor, Colonel, II, 275
Temple, Lady II, 100
-- , Lord, I, 65, 65 note, 148, 151, 152, 236, 240, 251, 255, 274,
284, 287, 288 note, 294, 295;
II, 46-7, 190, 198, 198 note
Thackeray, W. M., I, xiv-xv, 37, 79-80, 125-6, 193, 225;
II, 77, 291-2
Thanet, Earl of, I, 21 note
Thomas, Dr. John (Bishop of Winchester), II, 42
Thompson, James, I, 22
Thoms, W. J., I, 87
Thurlow, Lord, II, 82, 175, 176, 186, 194, 195, 198, 231, 259
Tooke, Horne, I, 255
Townshend, Charles, I, 85, 275, 288, 291;
II, 5, 32, 33, 34, 43, 48, 74, 129, 131, 135
-- , Lady, I, 220, 232
-- , Sir William, I, 21
Trench Mrs., II, 241-2
Trevelyan, Sir George, II, 37 note, 52, 71, 90, 92, 103, 112, 138-9
Tyrconnel, Earl of, II, 100 note
-- , Countess of, II, 100
Underwood, Lady Cecilia, II, 243
Uxbridge, Lady, II, 270
Vane, Ann, I, 11, 12
-- , Mr., I, 26
Vertue, George, I, 22
Von Bülow, Ida, I, 126
Waldegrave, James, Earl of, I, 42, 43, 50, 66, 67, 68, 81, 291;
II, 85
-- , Maria, Lady. _See_ Gloucester, Duchess of
Waldo, Sir Timothy, I, 217
Wales, Princess Dowager of, I, x, 10-11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 35, 36, 40,
42, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 57 note, 62, 63, 70, 74, 85,
107-8, 157, 269, 282, 283;
II, 28, 31, 36, 120, 237
Walpole, Sir Edward, II, 105
-- , Horace, I, 10, 11, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 53-4, 57, 59, 82, 86,
107, 108, 125, 129, 131, 133, 135, 139, 145, 149, 153 note, 156, 162,
167 note, 177, 203-4, 206, 222, 228 note, 246, 254 note, 266-7, 280-1,
283, 287, 288 note, 289;
II, 5, 25, 27, 29, 39, 43 note, 44, 50, 58, 59, 65, 68, 68 note, 73, 87,
99-100, 101-2, 103-4, 107, 110-111, 120, 122, 135, 137, 152, 157, 181,
184, 187, 191
-- , Sir Robert, I, 5, 7, 24, 25, 26, 29-30, 139, 160;
II, 1-2
Warburton, Bishop, I, 245, 248-9
Warkworth, Lord, II, 27 note
Warren, Dr., II, 212, 214, 219, 223, 227, 230, 233, 247
Watkins, John, I, 209-210
Wedderburn, Alexander. _See_ Loughborough, Baron.
Wellington, Arthur, Duke of, I, xiii
West, Benjamin, I, 191-2
Westmoreland, Earl of, I, 21 note, 116, 259
Weymouth, Lady, I, 207
-- , Lord, I, 291; II, 124
Whitehead, William, I, 10, 34-5, 83-4, 221
Wilkes, John, I, viii, 178, 235-57, 266-68;
II, 1, 61, 65, 68 note, 93
William IV, I, 1; II, 237 note, 244, 266
William Henry, Prince (brother of George III). _See_ Gloucester, Duke of
Williams, George James ("Gilly"), II, 56
-- , Sir Watkin, II, 83
Willis, Dr. Francis, II, 215, 216-21, 224, 227, 228, 230, 233, 265,
267, 277
-- , Dr. John, II, 219, 265, 284, 285
-- , Dr. Robert, II, 267, 268, 285
Wilmot, Sir Eardley, II, 70
-- , Olive. _See_ Serres, Mrs.
-- , Sir Robert, II, 50
Wilson, Dr. Thomas, I, 170-171
Winchelsea, Earl of, I, 21 note;
II, 33, 53, 57
Withers, Philip, II, 209-211
Wolcot, John. _See_ "Pindar, Peter"
Wood, Robert, I, 240
Wordsworth, William, I, xiii
Wraxall, Nathaniel, I, 79, 114, 168, 188, 264-5, 279;
II, 67-8, 72 note, 86-7, 100, 100 note, 110, 119, 173-4, 180, 190,
191, 159, 200, 203, 218, 234
Wriothesley, Miss, II, 62
Würtemberg, Charlotte, Queen of, II, 237 note, 238-40, 254
-- , Crown Prince of, II, 239
-- , Prince Ferdinand of, II, 240
Wyatt (architect), II, 274
York, Duchess of, II, 248
-- , Edward, Duke of, I, 22 note, 41, 51, 54, 74, 80, 99;
II, 99-103, 117 note, 120
-- , Frederick, Duke of, I, 98;
II, 225-6, 231, 237 note, 244, 248-9, 276, 281
Yorke, Charles, II, 70-2
Young, Sir W., II, 226 note
ERRATA
Vol. I, p. 223, line 8: _for_ Quirk _read_ Quick.
Vol. II, p. 275, line 17: _for_ Bedingsfield _read_ Bedingfield.
Vol. II, p. 278, line 1:}
" ", p. 282, line 14:} _for_ Percival _read_ Perceval.
THE END
_Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., Bath._
BY LEWIS MELVILLE
READY SHORTLY
Bath Under Beau Nash
Demy 8vo, with portraits and illustrations. Price 15s. net
Bath's most abiding memory, and one before which all others fade into
comparative insignificance, is Richard, more frequently referred to as
Beau Nash, the man of men to whom the city owes its fame.
Indeed, by most the creator is still esteemed greater than his creation,
and for one who is interested in Bath, a score are fascinated by the
romance of its erstwhile Master of the Ceremonies. In that city even
to-day his presence is felt. Of course, there is the tablet in the Abbey
Church and the memorial stone on the house, in which he died, for all
the world to see; but these are his least enduring monuments, for his
name is written on two-thirds of the buildings in Bath. The theatre was
his residence for many years; the existing Pump Room is on the site of
the older building where he held his court and whence he promulgated his
laws; the lecture hall of the Literary Institution was the ball-room of
Harrison's Assembly Rooms, over which he ruled with despotic power.
There in "The Grove" is the obelisk he erected to commemorate the stay
of the Prince of Orange; there, in Queen's Square, is another which he
placed in honour of the visit of Frederick, Prince of Wales. So might
Bath be traversed from north to south, from east to west, and everywhere
signs discovered of the presiding spirit, even to that small street
where an inn tempts passers-by to enter and drink "Beau Nash and Sulis."
All the world over the old order changeth and giveth place unto the new,
but it is sad to see historic landmarks neglected as they are in Bath,
where Londonderry House has been converted into cheap shops, and the
house where Nash died into a furniture warehouse; Sydney House stands
decaying, and Ralph Allen's city home is let in tenements. The folly of
this is the greater, because the fates may yet decree a revival of this
city which, Landor declared, is "the only place after Florence," and the
beauty of which has been sung in his sweetest strains by the greatest
living English poet.
LONDON: EVELEIGH NASH,
BEDFORD STREET, STRAND
"PUNCH"
A Great Punch Editor
By George Somes Layard
In 1 vol., demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, 18s. net.
With Eight Full-page Illustrations and twenty-two Initial Letters from
_Punch_.
A Memoir of Shirley Brooks, the second in succession of _Punch_ Editors.
"Shirley's pen is the gracefullest in London" was the verdict of Mark
Lemon, the famous first Editor of _Punch_. For twenty years Shirley
Brooks was Mark Lemon's right-hand man, and indeed, for the greater part
of that period, was the guiding power. In 1870 he was unhesitatingly
promoted to the editor's chair. In the present volume the subject of the
memoir is presented to the reader in aspects corresponding to Shirley
Brooks's many-sided character. Of Mr. Layard, the writer of this
Biography, whose "Life of Charles Keene" will be remembered as a
brilliant study of the greatest of _Punch_ artists, only this need be
said, that he possesses the knowledge of a specialist in humorous and
satirical literature, and has here presented Shirley Brooks, first in
his public capacity as journalist and editor, and then as the humorous
large-hearted man of the world, whom those who knew him best held, and
hold, in tenderest memory. The series of initial letters from _Punch's_
"Essence of Parliament" are an especially happy feature in a book which
has the exceptional merit of being the first full-dress biography of one
of _Punch's_ five famous editors.
Recollections of a Humourist
=By A. W. à Beckett= (late assistant Editor of _Punch_).
With Photogravure Portrait. 12s. 6d. net.
"He has written an attractive book of gossip, unspiced by even a grain
of malice, and full of easy, well-bred knowledge of the world, and
especially that part of it which lives in clubland and dabbles in
printer's ink."--_Standard._
"The great interest of the book lies in its pictures of certain aspects
of social life (and especially of cultured Bohemian club life), which
have now passed almost entirely away, and which reproduce in real life
many of the scenes over which everybody has laughed in the pages of
Dickens, Sala, and Thackeray."--_Daily News._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
BIOGRAPHIES
Daniel O'Connell
HIS EARLY LIFE AND JOURNAL, 1795-1802
Edited with an Introduction and Explanatory Notes by
Arthur Houston. K.C., LL.D.
In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, with full-page plate illustrations, 12s. 6d.
net.
"The book seems to me full of charm, alike for readers well acquainted
with the story of O'Connell's career, and for those to whom he is only a
more or less vague figure at a period of history already fading from the
common memory. I have read the book with great pleasure."--MR. JUSTIN
MCCARTHY in the _Daily Graphic_.
"His (the Editor's) task has been most carefully, wisely, and
sympathetically done.... Dr. Houston tells very attractively the story
of O'Connell's early life."--_Westminster Gazette._
The Countess of Huntingdon and Her Circle
By Sarah Tytler.
With a photogravure and Eight other Illustrations. 12s. 6d. net.
"A delightful study, catholic in spirit, charitable in its judgment, and
skilful in its portraiture.... This is the first readable and worthy
memoir of the courageous 'Queen of the Methodists,' as Horace Walpole
dubbed her."--_Methodist Times._
"Miss Tytler tells the story of Lady Huntingdon's life with a wealth of
quotation and allusion that makes the volume of great interest."--_Pall
Mall Gazette._
"All who are interested in the history of English Nonconformity will
find a pleasure in reading this book. Miss Tytler tells the life story
of the Countess of Huntingdon in pleasant gossipy fashion, and carries
the reader without fatigue through the story."--_Christian
Commonwealth._
"A worthy appreciation of this true 'Mother in Israel.'"--_English
Churchman._
"A serious and conscientious work."--_The Times._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
Recently Published Books
The Cambridge Apostles
By Mrs. Charles Brookfield
With 12 Full-page Portraits. Demy 8vo, 21s. net.
"No one who aspires to be a _raconteur_, or at familiarity with the
anecdotage of the Victorian Era, no one who loves a good story or
admires great men, can afford to miss the most fascinating book which
Mrs. Brookfield has been so happily advised to put forth...."--_The
Tribune._
"Mrs. Charles Brookfield has given us a book which we shall all read and
keep on our shelves--all of us, at any rate, who are made warm by
reading of great souls.... One might go on quoting endlessly. It is best
to advise everyone to read the book. It is a wholly delightful
volume."--_Daily Telegraph._
"Of each member of this richly-gifted band of youthful intellectuals,
and of their mutual association and influence, Mrs. Brookfield is able
to present, through the medium of family traditions and literary
records, many intimate glimpses, the interest of a very able and
brightly written volume culminating in her vivid sketch of the character
and personality of Arthur Hallam."--_World._
Mrs. Brookfield and Her Circle
By C. and F. Brookfield
NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION.
In 1 vol., demy 8vo, gilt top, with 4 photogravures 10s. 6d. net.
"These letters and anecdotes here collected are so rich and abundant
that the most copious extracts must give an inadequate idea of what they
contain. In Mrs. Brookfield's circle dulness was unknown. Her friends
were all interesting, not for their position, but for themselves. It
would be difficult to find in this same compass so much which though
only meant to be ephemeral is really worth preserving as these pages
preserve.... An almost ideal picture of what society properly understood
may be.... Mr. and Mrs. Brookfield do not seem to have known any
uninteresting people."--_The Times._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
THE AMEN CORNER EDITION
Boswell's Johnson
_Pitman's "Extra Illustrated" Edition_
Newly edited with notes, etc., by
Roger Ingpen
In two vols., crown 4to, 1,152 pages, half morocco, 21s. net, handsome
cloth gilt, 18s. net. With about 550 Illustrations and twelve
Photogravure Plates.
"The _raison d'etre_ of this edition, well printed in quarto form, is
its illustrations. Of these there are to be, besides twelve photogravure
plates, about 400--portraits from authentic originals, views from old
prints, autographs, facsimile title pages, etc.; and a series of views
of Johnson's haunts, drawn specially for the book, which so far as we
can at present judge from the pen and ink drawings now issued, are of a
pleasing kind. Mr. Ingpen's literary contribution consists of short
notes to the pictures; and his industry in collecting illustrative
material seems likely to deserve much gratitude from modern readers of
Boswell."--_Times._
"Includes a wealth of carefully annotated pictures of various kinds....
We congratulate publisher and author on the excellent idea of
illustrating the greatest of biographies on an ample scale. The part
before us contains a happy choice of pictures of places as well as
persons, and may well appeal even to those who have already, like the
present reviewer, some five editions of Boswell among their
books."--_Athenæum._
"No library, great or small, which makes any pretension to completeness,
can afford to be without it. The astonishing thing is that the world has
so long taken its Boswell unadorned; we mean without illustrations....
It is as nearly as possible, a reproduction of the England and the
English Society, the actual faces and places, Johnson and Boswell
knew.... It is not an exaggeration to say that Mr. Ingpen has done more
than any editor or annotator to make Boswell's Life of Johnson a
trustworthy and enjoyable biography."--_Yorkshire Weekly Post._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
BY FRANCES M. BROOKFIELD
My Lord of Essex
In crown 8vo, cloth, with frontispiece portrait, 6s.
"It is seldom that an historical novel is so satisfactory; there is not
a single dull or dead page.... We have nothing but praise for the
exciting tale, the accurate and lively picture of the period, and the
extremely clever drawing of the characters. Mrs. Brookfield must
certainly write some more historical novels."--_Daily Telegraph._
"Mrs. Brookfield, the author of 'The Cambridge Apostles,' has written a
novel in which she has used her power of revealing character in dialogue
with considerable dexterity. 'My Lord of Essex' is an historical romance
with the expedition to Cadiz as its central episode. The story and all
its characters are completely historical, the history being not merely a
setting for a romantic story, but the romantic story itself.... Mrs.
Brookfield's Essex is not merely the brave soldier, the badly-used
favourite, and the hero of the mob; he is also the far-seeing strategist
and the great statesman with schemes of toleration and popular
government in advance of his age.... We follow the account of the
expedition to Cadiz with a new enthusiasm.... Mrs. Brookfield's Essex is
a real personality, and she makes not only him but the whole atmosphere
of the period live for us. This is especially the case in the account of
his relations with Elizabeth. The scenes in which she shows us Elizabeth
baiting Essex one minute and giving him the next unmistakable proofs of
her love, trying even his loyalty to the utmost and yet never losing the
something more than loyalty with which, while he loved his Countess, he
yet regarded her, are admirable; indeed, historical fiction has not for
a long time given us anything better."--_Morning Post._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
BY ROBERT HUGH BENSON
The Sentimentalists
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
"The strongest of all Father Benson's books.... There is no denying the
strength and sincerity of the book, nor the force of its downright
insistence upon the necessity or expelling the excesses of
sentimentalism from the character.... A strongly worded but clean-minded
exposure of one side of contemporary national life."--_Daily Telegraph._
"The characterisation is always admirable. It is full of humour and
shrewd observation, and it is never dull. It is a distinct advance on
its author's previous works, and places him high in the rank of
contemporary novelists."--_Morning Post._
"One of the most subtle studies in the psychology of egotism which have
been written since Meredith's masterpiece."--_Tribune._
"A full-length portrait of a poseur.... We have encountered, nothing
better in its way than this merciless analysis of the psychology of the
histrionic temperament."--_Spectator._
"Mr. Benson gives in Christopher Dell a very careful study of a
temperament, drawn with much truth and discernment.... The minor
characters are extremely good, and so, indeed, are all the accessories
of the story, the descriptions, the setting of the scenes, and so
forth."--_Times._
Lord of the World
In crown 8vo, 6s.
(_Ready in November_)
In this novel the author attempts to trace what he believes will be the
future situation in the religious world, placing the date of his book in
the twenty-first century. Briefly stated, the _motif_ is that religious
thought is converging into two main camps--Humanitarianism and
Supernaturalism. Humanitarianism, or, rather, a kind of Pantheism, seems
to him to be the inevitable outcome of modern tendencies of thought as
severed from dogmatic Christianity; and, on the other side, he attempts
to show that the Church must, sooner or later, become the home of all
who believe in the Supernatural at all.
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
BY ROBERT HUGH BENSON
The Light Invisible
In crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
"Contains fifteen narratives of visions or incidents put into the mouth
of a saintly old Catholic priest.... It is written in a style in
harmonious keeping with its mystic tone, and there are several scenes of
striking pathos."--_The Manchester Guardian._
"It is impossible to appraise in the ordinary terms of criticism a book
which appeals to us so strongly as 'The Light Invisible.' Its delicate,
elusive mysticism, its deep spirituality, exercise upon the sympathetic
reader an irresistible charm, which can hardly be analysed or
defined."--_Church Times._
Richard Raynal, Solitary
In crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
"'Richard Raynal' tells of a 'solitary' or mystical hermit, who went to
warn Henry VI of sin and death, was beaten and died. That is all. But
the slight thread of the story is wonderfully moving. Father Benson has
made out of these tiny materials a fabric of the most fragrant
sweetness, the most delicate colours."--_Morning Leader._
"Here is no controversy, no heated passions swayed by theological
bitterness, but whether the scenes are peaceful or warlike, beautiful or
terrible, over all is the sun radiance and serenity of unruffled
faith.... It is written with a great beauty of style, and there is a
vividness in some of the details that take back the entranced reader
into the fifteenth century."--_Pall Mall Gazette._
A Mirror of Shalott
In crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.
"In this volume Father Hugh Benson sets down a collection of fourteen
stories supposed to be told during social evenings in Rome by Catholic
priests and laymen of varied nationalities.... Each of the stories deals
with a supernatural experience of the narrators.... With his dramatic
skill Father Benson makes almost visible the effect upon those assembled
of each extraordinary experience recited; with his singular simplicity
of style, his easy command of eloquent appeal and striking phrase, he
draws us within the shadow of the supernatural. The emotions of the soul
on the brink of departure have seldom been imagined with such a passion
of religious fervour. Admirable work we expect always from the youngest
of three gifted brothers, and with his latest book no reader will be
disappointed."--_Globe._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
BY ROBERT HUGH BENSON
By What Authority?
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
"A remarkable novel, full of genuine learning, its characterisation
strong and clearly defined, and its sincere and devout spirit must
impress even those who cannot agree with its tendencies."--_Saturday
Review._
"Mr. Robert Hugh Benson has given us a very carefully drawn picture of
the religious situation in the time of Elizabeth, of the time when more
than ever in our history households were divided against themselves....
Mr. Benson must be congratulated in that what he set out to do he has
done well."--_Daily Telegraph._
The King's Achievement
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
"Seldom has a more powerful picture been presented of the ruin wrought
to monastic life by the rapacity of Henry than that which Mr. Benson has
furnished.... He has contrived to furnish forth a novel in which the
interest is well maintained, and the characters, good or bad, are
intensely human."--_Scotsman._
"The first English novelist to give us an adequately faithful picture of
a period which presents many difficulties to the historian and the
novelist alike.... Must appeal both to Roman Catholic and Protestant as
an honest and fair transcript of a passage in English history of which
we have small reason to be proud.... A novel of far more than ordinary
merit."--_East Anglian Times._
The Queen's Tragedy
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
"Father Benson has undertaken to present Mary Tudor to us in a manner
that shall awaken, not the feelings of horror and detestation usually
considered appropriate, but those of pity, understanding, and respect.
Exquisitely pathetic is the figure he draws, with so much sympathy and
insight."--_Globe._
"As a piece of character drawing, Father Benson has, we think, done
nothing better than this pen portrait of the unfortunate and much
maligned Mary Tudor. While vindicating her from the odium cast upon her
by anti-catholic historians, he paints her at the same time in true, and
not bright colours.... A faithful picture of the least understood of
England's Queens."--_Universe._
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.,
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd.,
announce the following books for publication this autumn.
"=Household Law=," by J. A. SLATER. Demy 8vo, 5s. net.
"=Accountancy=," by F. W. PIXLEY. Demy 8vo, 5s. net.
"=Pitman's Bills, Cheques and Notes.=" Demy 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
"=The Secretary's Handbook.=" Edited by H. E. BLAIN. Demy 8vo, 5s.
net.
"=The Theory and Practice of Advertising=," by WALTER DILL SCOTT,
Ph.D. Large crown, 6s. net.
"=Money, Exchange and Banking=," by H. T. EASTON. Second Edition,
Revised. Demy 8vo, 5s. net.
"=Pitman's Hotel Book-keeping.=" Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
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.
Obvious typographical errors and printer errors have been corrected
without comment.
In addition to obvious typographical errors, the following changes were
made in this text:
1. On page 63 in the original text there was a footnote with no
footnote tag on the page. Since the footnote references the Duke of
Grafton, the footnote tag has been added to the following sentence:
"The Duke of Grafton, like Lord Rockingham, was a man of pleasure,
happier with his dogs and his books than in political life;[83]"
2. On page 83 there was no footnote tag in original text for
"Footnote 4: Ibid." This footnote has been removed in this e-text,
since the note appears to be a duplicate, referencing a quote which
continues onto the next page, and is footnoted there.
3. Two items in the index have been moved into correct alphabetical
order: "Paton" and "Pulteney".
From the list of errata on page 317, the following changes have been
made to this text:
Page 275: "Bedingsfield" was changed to "Bedingfield".
Pages 278 and 282 "Percival" was changed to "Perceval".
On page 133 no change was made to correct an internal inconsistency in
the date mentioned in the following sentence: "Duc de Choiseul, who
wrote in August, 1867...." From the context, it may be assumed that the
date was intended to be "1767".
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Farmer George, Volume 2" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.