Farmer George Volume I Part 6

[100] Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_.

More remarkable than his devotion to business was the apt.i.tude the young man, ignorant of affairs, soon showed for King-craft, and all were astonished to find that, after he had become accustomed to his position, he not only made efforts to induce ministers to carry out his views, but actually found means usually to compel them to do so. Unfortunately he started in life with the rooted idea that those who agreed with him were right, and those who differed wrong. "He will seldom do wrong, except when he mistakes wrong for right," prophesied Lord Waldegrave; "but as often as this shall happen, it will be difficult to undeceive him, because he has strong prejudices."[101] How true this was will presently appear. It was a misfortune, too, that what intelligence he possessed, not sufficient to enable him to see two sides to a question, made him suspicious of all who rose above mediocrity. Fox, father and son, he hated, and he declared once that Sheridan ought to be hanged, while he could rarely find a good word for Chatham, Burke, and the other men of commanding talent with whom perforce he was brought into contact. It was his liking for nonent.i.ties that Peter Pindar[102] pilloried, in words attributed to Sir Joseph Banks:[103]

"To circles of pure ignorance conduct me; I hate the company that can _instruct_ me; I wish to imitate my King, so _nice_, Great prince, who ne'er was known to take advice!

Who keeps no company (delightful plan!) That dares be wiser than himself, good man!"[104]

[101] Waldegrave: _Memoirs_.

[102] John Wolcot, satirist and poet (1738-1819), wrote under the pseudonym of "Peter Pindar."

[103] Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820), president of the Royal Society, 1778-1820.

[104] _Peter's Prophecy._

Whatever forebodings may have been entertained by those behind the scenes, George III was at his succession very popular, and whenever he showed himself in public was heartily greeted by his loyal subjects.

"The new reign dates with great propriety and decency, the civilest letter to Princess Emily; the greatest kindness to the Duke; the utmost respect to the dead body," Walpole wrote. "No changes to be made but those absolutely necessary, as the household, etc.--and, what some will think the most unnecessary, in the representative of power. There is great dignity and grace in the King's manner. I don't say this like my dear Madame de Sevigne, because he was civil to _me_, but the part is well acted. The young King has all the appearance of being amiable.

There is great grace to temper much dignity and good nature which breaks out on all occasions." Nicholls expressed his opinion that the monarch was "of a good person, sober, temperate, of domestic habits, addicted to no vice, swayed by no pa.s.sion";[105] while Mary Lepel, Lady Hervey, was outspoken in his favour. "Every one, I think, seems to be pleased with the whole behaviour of our young King; and indeed so much unaffected good nature and propriety appears in all he does or says, that it cannot but endear him to all; but whether anything can long endear a King or an angel in this strange factious country, I can't tell. I have the best opinion imaginable of him, not from anything he does or says just now, but because I have a moral certainty that he was in his nursery the honestest, true, good-natured child that ever lived, and you know my old maxim that qualities never change; what the child was, the man most certainly is, in spite of temporary appearances."[106]

Whitehead, of course, salvoed his joy in rhyme.

"And who is he, of regal mien, Reclined on Albion's golden fleece, Whose polished brow, and eye serene, Proclaim him elder-born of peace?

Another George! ye winds convey Th' auspicious name from pole to pole: Thames, catch the sound and tell the subject sea Beneath whose sway its waters roll, The heavy monarch of the deep Who soothe's its murmurs with a father's care, Doth now eternal Sabbath keep, And leaves his trident to his blooming heir, O, if the Muse, aright divine, Fair Peace shall bless his opening reign, And through the splendid progress s.h.i.+ne With every art to grace her train, The wreaths, so late by glory won, Shall weave their foliage round his throne, 'Till Kings abashed shall tremble to be foes, And Albion's dreaded strength secure the world's repose."

[105] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.

[106] _Letters of Mary Lepel, Lady Hervey._

Yet there were other observers who could see the reverse side of the s.h.i.+eld. Old Samuel Johnson thought the pleasure manifested at the accession of George III, "of whom we are so much inclined to hope great things that most of them begin already to believe them," was due in great part to the fact that "we were so weary of our old King." He was, moreover, not very enthusiastic at the prospect. "The young man is. .h.i.therto blameless, but it would be unreasonable to expect much from the immaturity of juvenile years and the ignorance of princely education. He has long been in the hands of the Scots, and has already favoured them more than the English will contentedly endure. But, perhaps, he scarcely knows whom he has distinguished, or whom he has disgusted."

Lord Chesterfield declared that the King, "like a new Sultan, was lugged out of the seraglio by the Princess and Lord Bute, and placed upon the throne";[107] Mr. Attorney General Pratt,[108] within four months of the accession, could "see already that this will be a weak and inglorious reign"; while Charles Townshend, asked what was the young King's character, summed it up, "He is very obstinate."[109]

[107] _Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield._

[108] Sir Charles Pratt, first Earl Camden (1714-1794).

[109] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.

CHAPTER V

"THE FAIR QUAKER"

Stolid, unimaginative, and slow of thought, that Prince of Wales, who was afterwards George III, is one of the last persons in the world to be suspected of a love intrigue. Yet, by some strange irony, he has been generally accepted as the hero of an _affaire-de-coeur_ in his youthful days, and this is not the less remarkable because, so far as is known, belief has been induced only by persistent rumour. No direct evidence, personal or doc.u.mentary, has ever been brought forward in support of the story; and there is no mention of it in the memoirs of George's contemporaries: even Horace Walpole, who referred to George as "chaste,"

never mentioned it, and it is inconceivable that that arrant scandal-monger could have been acquainted with such a t.i.t-bit of court gossip and have refrained from retailing it. None the less there is a marked reluctance to dismiss as baseless the alleged connexion between George and Hannah Lightfoot, for, on the principle that there is no smoke without fire, it seems extremely unlikely that the story can have become so generally accepted unless it had at least some foundation of truth.

[Ill.u.s.tration:

_By permission of Messrs. Henry Graves & Co., Ltd._

_From the portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds_

MISS AXFORD

(_supposed to be a portrait of Hannah Lightfoot_)]

Mr. Thoms, who many years ago made an exhaustive study of the subject[110], states that the first mention of it in print was to be found in a letter to the editor of "The Monthly Magazine, or British Register" for April, 1821, that is, after the death of George III; and this, coupled with the absence of any reference to the story in the memoirs of the day, threw very grave doubt on the authenticity of the alleged romance. Since the appearance of Mr. Thom's _brochure_, however, this particular reason for scepticism has been removed, for earlier allusions have been discovered. "The Citizen" for Sat.u.r.day, February 24, 1776, contains the following advertis.e.m.e.nt:--"_Court Fragments_. Which will be published by 'The Citizen' for the Use, Instruction and Amus.e.m.e.nt of Royal Infants and young promising n.o.blemen. 1. The history and adventures of Miss L-hf--t, the Fair Quaker; wherein will be faithfully portrayed some striking pictures of female constancy and princely grat.i.tude, which terminated in the untimely death of that lady, and the sudden death of a disconsolate mother." The next recorded reference is in the "Royal Register" for 1779, when the matter is referred to as one familiar to most persons. "It is not believed even at this time, by many people who live in the world, that he [King George]

had a mistress previous to his marriage. Such a circ.u.mstance was reported by many, believed by some, disputed by others, but proved by none; and with such a suitable caution was this intrigue conducted that if the body of the people called Quakers, of which this young lady in question was a member, had not divulged the fact by the public proceedings of their meeting concerning it, it would in all probability have remained a matter of doubt to this day."

[110] William J. Thoms: _Hannah Lightfoot, Queen Charlotte and the Chevalier D'Eon. Dr. Wilmot's Polish Princess. Reprinted with some additions, from "Notes and Queries," 1867._

Robert Huish, who wrote a life of George III, that, published in 1821, must have been in part, at least, written during the monarch's life, was also acquainted with the legend, for, though he does not mention the girl's name, he makes a very obvious allusion to Hannah Lightfoot. He states that after the Prince of Wales, at his mother's express desire, declined to entertain George II's proposal for him to marry Princess Sophia of Brunswick and stated he would wed only a Princess of the House of Saxe-Gotha, his thoughts turned to love. "The Prince, though surrounded with all the emblems of royalty, and invested with sovereign authority, was nevertheless but a man, subject to all the frailties of his nature, impelled by the powerful tide of pa.s.sion," writes Huish in his grandiloquent fas.h.i.+on; and, after some extravagantly phrased remarks on the temptations that surround an heir-apparent, continues, "His affections became enchained; he looked no more to Saxe-Gotha nor to Brunswick for an object on which to lavish his love; he found one in the secret recesses of Hampton, whither he often repaired, concealed by the protecting shades of night, and there he experienced, what seldom falls to the lot of princes, the bliss of the purest love. The object of his affections became a mother, and strengthened the bond between them."

The reference to the affair in the letter of a correspondent "B" to "The Monthly Magazine" has, at least, the merit of being more explicit than that of the historian. "All the world is acquainted with the attachment of the late King to a beautiful Quakeress of the name of Wheeler. The lady disappeared on the royal marriage, in a way that has always been interesting, because unexplained and mysterious. I have been told she is still alive, or was lately. As connected with the life of the late sovereign, the subject is curious; and any information through your pages would doubtless be agreeable to many of your readers." It appears that the writer of this letter attributed too much knowledge to "all the world," for, as will now be shown, it is remarkable how little was known. The subject once started, however, there were plenty of people ready to carry on the discussion.

In the July number of the same periodical "A Warminster Correspondent"

states that the name of the girl was not Wheeler but Hannah Lightfoot, that Hannah had lived at the corner of St. James's Market, with her mother and father, who kept a shop ("I believe a linen-draper's"), that the Prince of Wales saw her, fell in love, and persuaded Elizabeth Chudleigh, one of his mother's maids of honour,[111] to act on his behalf. "The royal lover's relations took alarm, and sent to inquire for a young man to marry her," he continues. "Isaac Axford was a shopman to Barton the grocer, on Ludgate Hill, and used to chat with her when she came to the shop to buy groceries. Perryn, of Knightsbridge, it was said, furnished a place of meeting for the royal lover. An agent of Miss Chudleigh called on Axford, and proposed that on his marrying Hannah he should have a considerable sum of money. Hannah stayed a short time with her husband, when she was taken off in a carriage, and Isaac never saw her more. Axford learned that she was gone with Miss Chudleigh. Isaac was a poorheaded fellow, or, by making a bustle about it, he might have secured to himself a good provision. He told me, when I last saw him, that he presented a pet.i.tion at St. James's, which was not attended to; also that he had received some money from Perryn's a.s.signees on account of his wife." Isaac, it seems, set up as a grocer at Warminster, his native place, but retired from business before his death, which took place about 1816 in the eighty-sixth year of his age; having long before, believing his wife to be dead, married a Miss Bartlett, of Keevil, North Wilts. "Hannah was fair and pure as far as I ever heard,"

the Warminster correspondent concludes, "but 'not the purest of all pures' in respect of the house of Mr. Perryn, who left her an annuity of 40 a year. She was, indeed, considered as one of the most beautiful women of her time, disposed to _en bon point_."

[111] Elizabeth Chudleigh (1720-1788), married, first, Augustus Hervey (afterwards third Earl of Bristol), and, second, Evelyn Duke of Kingston.

The editor of "The Monthly Magazine" now became interested in the matter, and himself took some trouble to elucidate the facts. "On inquiry of the Axford family, who still are respectable grocers on Ludgate Hill, we traced a son of the person alluded to in the letter, by his second wife, Miss Bartlett, and ascertained that the information of our correspondent is substantially correct. From him we learn that the lady lived six weeks with her husband, who was fondly attached to her, but one evening when he happened to be from home, a coach and four came to the door, when she was conveyed into it and carried off at a gallop, no one knew whither. It appears the husband was inconsolable at first, and at different times applied for satisfaction about his wife at Weymouth and other places, but died after sixty years in total ignorance of her fate. It has, however, been reported that she had three sons by her lover, since high in the Army; that she was buried in Islington under another name--and even that she is still living."[112]

[112] _The Monthly Magazine_, July, 1821.

"A retreat was provided for Hannah in one of those large houses, surrounded with a high wall and garden, in the district of Cat-and-Mutton Fields, on the East side of Hackney Road, leading from Mile End Road, where she lived, and, it is said, died."--_Notes and Queries_, 1st series, vol. 8, p. 87.

The research of the editor of "The Monthly Magazine" bears out in the main his correspondent's statements, and if in one account it is said that Axford was shopman to Barton the grocer on Ludgate Hill, and in the other that he was the son of a grocer on Ludgate Hill, these may be reconciled by the acceptance of the theory that the man was not serving his apprentices.h.i.+p in his father's business. It is far more unlikely that Hannah should go from St. James's Market to Ludgate Hill to purchase her groceries. It is agreed that Hannah stayed with her husband for a while after marriage, and it is not unnatural that the Axford family should suppress the mention of money paid to their forbear and of the circ.u.mstances that induced the payment. A more serious discrepancy, however, comes to light. "A Warminster Correspondent" remarks that Axford knew Hannah was with Miss Chudleigh; the family declares he was ignorant of what happened to her, but say at the same time he "applied about his wife at Weymouth." Why Weymouth, where George III sometimes went, if he did not know what had happened to her? Why not Barnstaple, or Leeds, or Edinburgh?

But now contradictions come fast and furious. "Isaac Axford never co-habited with his wife. She was taken away from the church door the same day they were married, and he never heard of her afterwards" states a contributor to the September number of "The Monthly Magazine"; adding that Hannah was frequently seen at the door of the St. James's Market shop by the Prince of Wales as he drove by in going to and from Parliament and that Axford (who was shopman to Bolton the grocer in Ludgate Hill) subsequently presented a pet.i.tion to the King about her in the park, but obtained little address. The same writer clears Hannah's reputation so far as Perryn is concerned, by stating that they were relatives, and thus furnis.h.i.+ng an innocent motive for the legacy.

As confusion became worse confounded, some level-headed man asked a series of questions,[113] of which the most pertinent were: "When and where did the marriage take place of Hannah Lightfoot, a Quaker, to I.

Axford? Where is the evidence that she was the same Quaker who lived at the corner of St. James's Market, and was admired by Prince George?"

Facts, however, were just what were not forthcoming, though "Inquirer"

(who claimed to be a member of the Lightfoot family), in a letter to the October issue of the magazine actually gives a date.

[113] _The Monthly Magazine_, September, 1821.

"Hannah Lightfoot, when residing with her father and mother, was frequently seen by the King when he drove to and from Parliament House,"

"Inquirer" says. "She eloped in 1754, and was married to Isaac Axford at Keith's Chapel, which my father discovered about three weeks after, and none of her family have seen her since, though her mother had a letter or two from her--but at last died of grief. There were many fabulous stories about her, but my aunt (the mother of Hannah Lightfoot) could never trace any to be true." "Inquirer" states that "the general belief of her friends was that she was taken into keeping by Prince George directly after her marriage with Axford, but never lived with him," and adds, "I have lately seen a half-pay cavalry officer from India, who knew a gentleman of the name of Dalton, who married a daughter of Hannah Lightfoot by the King, but who is dead."[114]

[114] "With respect to the son born of this marriage, and said to be still living at the Cape of Good Hope, I think ... there must be some mistake. I was at the Cape of Good Hope in 1830, and spent some time at Mr. George Rex's hospitable residence at the Knysna. I understood from him that he had been about thirty-four years in the colony, and I should suppose he was about sixty-eight years of age, of a strong, robust appearance, and the exact resemblance in features to George III. This would bring him to about the time, as stated in Dr. Doran's work, when George III married Hannah Lightfoot. On Mr. Rex's first arrival at the colony, he occupied a high situation in the Colonial Government, and received an extensive grant of land at the Knysna. He retired there, and made most extensive improvements. His eldest son named John--at the time I was there, lived with his father, and will now most probably be the representative of George Rex."--William Harrison: _Notes and Queries_, February 9, 1861.

The statement contradicted by Mr. Harrison had appeared in _Notes and Queries_, October 24, 1868: "When the Duke of Edinburgh went sporting in Cape Colony he was attended by George Rex and family, according to _The Times_ account."

So far, then, Hannah Lightfoot (or Wheeler, or, as another writer says, Whitefoot) was seen by the Prince of Wales on his visits to Parliament (or, as it is otherwise stated by one who declared that the Prince would not have pa.s.sed by St. James's Market on his way to Parliament, or on his way to the Opera), who fell in love with her, and secured the aid of Miss Chudleigh to persuade her to leave her home, but his family, being alarmed, paid Isaac Axford, shopman to Barton (or Bolton) to marry her, and then she was at once (or after six weeks) taken into keeping by the Prince. This is not very plain sailing, but the incident took place more than sixty years before the discussion arose, and the discrepancies are not unnatural after that lapse of time; but at least there has been given the place and date of the marriage of Hannah with Isaac--Keith's Chapel, 1754. Alexander Keith was a clergyman who married parties daily between the hours of ten and four for the fee of one guinea, inclusive of the licence, at the Mayfair Chapel to which he gave his name. These marriages were irregular or "Fleet" marriages, and Keith's carelessness in conducting them subjected him in October, 1742, to public excommunication, when, in return, he as publicly excommunicated the bishop of the diocese, and Dr. Trebeck, the rector of the neighbouring St. George's, Hanover Square, on being told a stop would be put to his marrying. "Then," said he, "I'll buy two or three acres of ground, and, by G.o.d, I'll _underbury_ them all!" However, the Marriage Act of 1753 put a stop to his trade.

As a matter of fact, according to the Register of Marriages at St.