Farmer George Volume Ii Part 6

[129] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _From a portrait by L. F. Liolard_

HENRY FREDERICK, DUKE OF c.u.mBERLAND]

[Ill.u.s.tration: _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 ill.u.s.trious group, carrying off princes whom the world p.r.o.nounced 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 c.u.mberland, emanc.i.p.ated 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 pa.s.sion 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._

[Ill.u.s.tration: MARIA, d.u.c.h.eSS 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 d.u.c.h.ess 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 pa.s.sed 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 d.u.c.h.ess of Gloucester than to feel myself the cause of his leading such a life as his brother, the Duke of c.u.mberland, 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 d.u.c.h.ess 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 courts.h.i.+p and marriage of Lady Waldegrave, the Duke of c.u.mberland was spending the years in riotous living. Scandals cl.u.s.tered 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _From an engraving by V. Green_

ANNE, d.u.c.h.eSS OF c.u.mBERLAND

_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 inc.u.mbent 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 pa.s.sion. 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 languis.h.i.+ng 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 d.u.c.h.ess of c.u.mberland."[136]

[134] For years there was a rumour that the Duke of c.u.mberland had married Olive Wilmot in 1767, and Miss Wilmot's daughter (afterwards Mrs. Serres) called herself Princess Olive of c.u.mberland. 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 doc.u.ments 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 _a 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 a.s.sured, 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 c.u.mberland 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-a.s.sorted 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 p.r.o.nounced the measure "newfangled and impudent." Still the Royal Marriage Act pa.s.sed 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 t.i.tle 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 pa.s.sed 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 att.i.tude 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, _a 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 d.u.c.h.ess of Gloucester bore their exile with equanimity, for the Duke was pa.s.sionately 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 d.u.c.h.esses about their husbands' reconciliation with the King," Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien, in the summer of 1780. "The d.u.c.h.ess of c.u.mberland 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 a 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."