Page:Imperialdictiona02eadi Brandeis.pdf/630

GEO took the totally different view that her expenditure was a benefit to them, told them in her broken English that she had come over "for your goots." "Yes, and for our chattels too," cried a voice. This was a fortunate diversion for the lady; the mob had their laugh, and becoming good-humoured let her pass. The king's unfortunate wife died at the castle of Ahlen in Hanover, where she had been long a prisoner, in 1726. She bore to him two children; his successor, George II., and the Princess Sophia Dorothea, married to Frederic II. of Prussia. With the former his father had a long feud, as will be seen in the next article. In June, 1727, the king was in sufficient health to undertake a journey to Hanover; but he was seized with apoplexy at Oznaburg, where he died June 11, 1727.—J. H. B—n.  ), King of Great Britain and Ireland, and elector of Hanover, the only son of George I., and his unhappy queen, was born at Hanover on the 30th October, 1683. In 1705 he married Caroline Wilhelmina, the daughter of the margrave of Anspach. He was early trained to arms, and distinguished himself at the battle of Oudenarde in 1708. On the accession of his father, in 1714, he came to Britain, and took rank as prince of Wales. Previously, in the year 1706, he had received patents of the dukedom of Cambridge, and other titles in the English peerage; but he had, for some constitutional reasons, never been called to serve in parliament by writ of summons until his father's accession. He was then not quite thirty years old, and there was all fair appearance of a cordiality between him and his father, which was confirmed by his being appointed, in 1716, guardian or regent during the absence of the king in Hanover. Scarcely another year elapsed, however, before there was public evidence that the father and son were in bitter contest. The origin of this feud is nearly as mysterious as the history of the prince's unfortunate mother. It broke out to public view on a small question of etiquette connected with the christening of a son born to the prince in 1717, but is now believed to have had some far deeper source. The king, acting under the notions he had imbibed and practised in his own German court, attempted to restrain his son's personal liberty; but there was no prerogative law for such a step in England. It was found, however, after solemn discussion, that the king was entitled to the personal custody and guardianship of his son's family, who were then pretty numerous. Those who gave any countenance to the heir of the throne were denounced as enemies by its occupant; and a regulation was established that any persons who communicated with the prince should be debarred his majesty's presence. It has been maintained that the father desired the prerogatives of the crown to be curtailed, that they might not pass into the hands of his son, and that this was the real object of the celebrated attempt to pass a measure for limiting the power of the crown in the creation of peers. This condition of matters presented a hard alternative to courtiers, who found it impossible to serve two masters, though the one was wearing off the stage, and the other was presently to be the source of all honour and emoluments. Walpole, who had no inclination of abandoning power if he could keep it, has the credit of having by his dexterity paved the way for its retention, by accomplishing a reconciliation between the king and prince. It is at all events certain that in 1720 their reconciliation was publicly announced, and accompanied by solemn ceremonials, which, however, only created suspicions of the sincerity of the union represented by them.

When his father died, on 11th June, 1727, George II. ascended the throne without a murmur of opposition. The Hanover dynasty seemed securely established, and the only question was what parliamentary party should rule in their name. Walpole had immediate reason to fear that he had failed in the accomplishment of his great object. When he waited on the new king to tender his duty and receive instructions, he was startled by receiving a peremptory order to "send for Compton." Spencer Compton was sent for. Being employed, however, preparatory to his appointment as prime minister, to draw up a declaration to the privy council, he had the simplicity to solicit Walpole's aid in his task. The old minister thus held the position of the experienced servant who is to be thoughtlessly dismissed to make way for a favourite, to whom, nevertheless, for the sake of the public good, he imparts the necessary assistance in the performance of his duties. The queen is said to have used her influence in favour of Walpole, and there was virtually no change; he remained prime minister until he was driven from office in 1742, The policy and career of this remarkable minister belong to the account of his own life, and it need only be mentioned here that they were of a kind well suited to satisfy a prince not ambitious or not able personally to guide the politics of the state. It was the chief principle of his rule to postpone all great difficulties; to keep matters smooth in the meantime by the easiest and most effective mode, without testing it by any principles of morality; to make no enemies either at home or abroad; and to buy up all the assistance that could be bought. In 1739 the queen died. Though it was understood that she received but little kindness or even justice from her husband, she exercised a good influence over him, and her virtues endeared her to the nation. The expulsion of Walpole three years afterwards was a trying epoch to the king. He was driven to seek the counsels of his old adviser, indeed, at the time when the nation was demanding his blood, and the nominal ministry were pursuing him as a criminal. The king afterwards found a more genial element of exertion in the breaking out of the war which his old adviser had so long restrained. On the 19th of June, 1743, he reached the army of the allies on the Mayne, accompanied by his son, the duke of Cumberland. Lord Stair, the commander of the allied troops, was at feud with Arembeg, the German commander, who, belonging to a sort of monarchical house, would not yield to a mere subject. The king's rank at once subdued all disputes; and it is certain that, whether from his mere presence or from his military skill, he may be said to have gained the battle of Dettingen. "As the French approached," says Lord Mahon, "the horse of George II., frightened with the noise, ran away with his majesty, and had nearly carried him into the ranks of the enemy's lines, but was stopped in time. The king then dismounted and put himself at the head of the British and Hanoverian infantry, flourishing his sword, and addressing the British in these words—"Now boys, now for the honour of England; fire and behave bravely, and the French will soon run" (Hist. iii., 256). Stair was eager for a pursuit of the enemy, but was restrained by the king, and soon afterwards, discontented with the royal interference, retired from his command. This is the last occasion in which a British sovereign commanded troops under fire.

The king was still abroad when the insurrection of 1745 startled him into the consciousness that his throne was not so entirely secure as he supposed it. The only disputes at home had been to settle who should be his servants. The country seemed fundamentally in such perfect tranquillity that he could spend his time in distant warfare, and leave the courtiers to dispute among themselves; when suddenly an army more foreign to the English people than the Hungarians and Pandours who fought in the German wars, had marched into the heart of England, and were little more than a hundred miles from London. The head of the government at home, the duke of Newcastle, was ill fitted for such a crisis, and could give but distracted and incoherent counsel. It was said that he shut himself up, meditating whether it would not be his safest policy to declare for the Stewarts. It was the time when monarchs were deemed the proper commanders of their own armies, and it was for consideration whether the king himself should lead his troops northwards. It was decided that his son, the duke of Cumberland, should go, although he had but just contributed to the misfortunes at Fontenoy, the only considerable victory which French troops have gained over British troops. Whether from the influence which royal rank still held in the command of armies, or from actual military skill, he put down the insurrection with a success which favourably contrasted with the reverses suffered by old and experienced generals of the ordinary military type. The insurrection was extinguished in 1746, and in 1748 the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle restored peace to Europe. In the meantime, however, the king was involved in a feud nearer home, which had been of long growth, and had increased rapidly since the death of the queen. Frederick, prince of Wales, born in 1707, was married to an ambitious woman, the Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. As his father advanced in years, and the probability of his succeeding to the crown seemed to approach, he established himself as the regular head of the opposition to the ministry. It has been doubted whether this feud between father and son arose from natural temperament on both sides, like the quarrel of the father with George I., or was the creation of the political schemes of the period. Of these schemes, and the proceedings of the rival court which the prince had 