news of the duke of Gloucester's death too true. His majesty thinks that mourning for your person and such as are near you out of livery for three months all that need be on this melancholy occasion." Not a word, however, touching the important question of how the demise of the duke was to be communicated to his French majesty. More than a month had elapsed since his death; Anne and her husband had written letters themselves of formal announcement of their loss to Louis XIV., after long waiting for William to do so; but this only added to the dilemma of the ambassador. "Last night," writes he to secretary Vernon,2 "I received letters from their royal highnesses for this court, which will not be received here, unless there is a letter at the same time from his majesty; neither can I offer them without being empowered to do it, either by you or Mr. Blathwayt, as you see by the enclosed. I freely tell Mr. Griffith, whom I have desired to consult with you and my lord Marlborough upon this matter. There is so much time already past, that I wait with some impatience for your directions in what manner the duke of Gloucester's death is to be notified, the rather that I may prevent the discourses of some people, who would have it believed that this court is backward in paying us the respect of going into mourning on this occasion." The same day the ambassador writes in more explicit terms, on this embarrassing topic, to Mr. Griffiths. "Paris, Sept. 8, 1700. "Sir, I have received yours, with the letters of her royal highness the princess Anne and his royal highness the prince, and I shall be always ready to obey their commands, though in this case, upon inquiry, I cannot deliver the letters unless I had also one from the king to the French king. This court says, that it is usual upon these occasions that the prince and princess send a person on purpose, with a character, who would be received as if he came from a crowned head, as they think was done in the case of the duke of Cambridge. If the prince and princess would avoid this, then, a letter from the king, to be delivered by me with those of their royal highnesses, will be sufficient to make this court go into mourning. And as for the other letters to the rest of the princes, they need not be delivered. This will avoid one inconvenience, as there is none for the dauphin. I am sensible of the reason why there is not; and I think it convenient not to make that matter so public as by consequence it would be, and cause various dis courses. "I desire you would assure their royal highnesses of my most humble duty. It will be convenient that you should inform my lord Marlborough and Mr. Secretary Vernon of this whole matter, since I have received from Loo no other orders than to put myself and family in mourning, which I have already done. I hope I may know as soon as possible what measures are taken.-I am, &c., 1 Cole's Memoirs for Affairs of State, 206. "MANCHESTER." * Ibid. p. 207. * Son of James II., when duke of York, deceased in the reign of Charles II. As late as the 15th of September, the poor ambassador was still fretting in spirit, and writing to one or other of the English cabinet to complain that he had received no definite orders from king William, who certainly must have taken an ill-natured pleasure in the perplexity of his English officers of state on this occasion. Anne, piqued at the little respect that was paid to the memory of her only son, caused secretary Vernon to write to lord Manchester, to ask, "Why her letters to the king of France had not been delivered? and that court not in mourning?" "Since my illness," writes the ambassador, in reply, "my secretary has wrote to Mr. Cardonnel' to explain whether any notice is to be given this court?" LORD MANCHESTER TO MR. SECRETARY VERNON. 66 'Paris, Sept. 15, 1700. "M. Cardonnel desires my secretary to acquaint me, that there are no orders given to notify the duke of Gloucester's death to any court whatsoever. So you see how this matter stands. I must tell you, to remove any suspicions that this court might seem not inclined to go into mourning, that they are ready to do it whenever it is notified to them in form, but they do not take it to be regular that I should deliver the princess's letters, without any from the king; for you know, in all audiences that I have, my discourse is always in the name of the king, and cannot be otherwise, though I can at the same time make a compliment from their royal highnesses. They do still say here, that if this was the case of any of the children of monsieur, he would send, and not the king. So, likewise, they conceive their royal highnesses ought to do. I am apt to think the princess had not sent these letters, had she not thought that I had orders also from Loo. I shall readily obey what directions you give me, but I confess it is my opinion that, since there has been so much time lost, and unless it is generally notified in all courts, that it is better to let this matter rest. Besides, this court goes to-morrow sennight to Fontainebleau, and in a few days after the late king and queen' go. How long they are to be there is uncertain, but whilst they stay, I know not well how I can go thither. I must acquaint you that the introductor of ambassadors has been with me, and has sent me some precedents, those the duke of Yorks had sent to this court. I have enclosed a copy of his letter, that you may judge of it." "September 17. "I do not doubt but you have heard that the princess has sent me letters for this court, to notify the death of the duke of Gloucester. Unless I have also letters from the king [William III.] himself, I cannot present them, nor will they be received, as I am informed. I should think the princess should have known the king's pleasure in this matter. There is so much time lost, that, in my opinion, it is much better to let it alone, for though they should go into mourning, it would be for so little a time that it might not be well taken." 1 Secretary to lord Marlborough. 2 James II. and his queen, Mary Beatrice. 3 This must have been James II. before his accession, and relate to the deaths of his infant children by his first and second duchess. son. It was not till the 1st of October, upwards of two months after the death of the young duke, that William condescended to empower his representative to announce his demise to the king of France, although the nearest male relative he had in the world, excepting his uncle James II. and his disowned A fortnight's mourning was ordered by that monarch, a result scarcely commensurate with the voluminousness of the correspondence it occasioned. The death of the king of Spain occurring soon after, William ordered the utmost respect to be immediately paid to his memory; his ambassadors had even their coaches covered with black. The court of France went into a three months' mourning for that potentate; but little more respect was paid by William to the feelings of his sister-in-law, on account of the death of her only child, than if he had been a kitten or a puppy deceased, which happened to have been a pet of royalty. "October 9. "I can now acquaint you,” wrote lord Manchester, "that yesterday I had an audience of the king, at Fontainebleau, when I notified to him the death of the duke of Gloucester, and delivered their royal highnesses' letters. The king expressed himself' as extremely sensible of the great loss,' &c. as is usual on such occasions. As to what related to their royal highnesses, he concluded with saying that he would take an occasion of letting them know the great share he took in their concern.' In short, all things went as could be desired, and on Wednesday next the court goes into mourning, which will be the day after the late king [James II.] leaves Fontainebleau. I have some reason to think that my going thither, whilst they were there, may have a good effect; for of late the St. Germain's people are so high, that they think it is now our time to court them. I find that though they heard a week before that I was to come, yet they could not believe it. I carried myself as if I thought there were no such persons, and my coach came to the great stairs, which is under the late king's [James II.] apartment there. Those that belong to them were cousins brought to see me, but it was also, I believe, no little mortification to them to see where I went, all the French making me all the compliments imaginable. I was a considerable time with M. de Torcy, and satisfied him both in relation to the delay and the king's not writing. I was forced to lay the occasion of it on the lords justices,' who (I said) the king thought, would have sent me orders, which was the reason I had them not sooner from Loo! This, I hope, they (the lords-justices or English regents) will pardon, but when things are managed in such a way, one must make the most plausible excuse one can." 1 This curious passage proves that the ambassador knew the fault did not rest with the lords-justices (meaning by them the English regency), but with William III. The apology Manchester makes for inventing this falsehood, and fathering the fault of his royal master's brutality "on the nine kings," is truly comic. "LORD MANCHESTER TO M. BLATHWAYTE. "October 11. "I have obeyed his majesty's commands in notifying the duke of Gloucester's death. The king [Louis XIV.] received it with great concern, and bid me assure the king, my master, 'that even at the time he first heard of it he took share in the loss, because he knew it would be a great trouble to his majesty.' With the other he sent compliments on such an occasion. I delivered the prince [George] and princess' [Anne's] letters. To that he said, 'he would take an occasion of letting them know the great share he took in their loss.' In short, all things went as well as could be desired, and I hope his majesty will approve of what I have done. The French court will go into mourning on Friday next. They were willing to have the court of St. Germains gone away first, which will be to-morrow." About the same time arrived the long-delayed answer, from his gracious majesty, to the announcement of the death of his young kinsman and heir to his dominions. Many historians have quoted king William's letter-not one has pointed out the astounding circumstance, that although the death of the child took place as far back as July, yet the royal missive is dated in October! Months had elapsed since the death, and several weeks since the burial, of Gloucester, before the king condescended to notice that his heir was no longer in existence. No word of human sympathy, it may be observed, is vouchsafed to the wretched mother. The original is in French, and is addressed to lord Marlborough: "Loo, October, 1700. "I do not think it necessary to employ many words in expressing my surprise and grief at the death of the duke of Gloucester. It is so great a loss to me, as well as to all England, that it pierces my heart with affliction."1 The affliction of king William did not, however, hinder him from sending, by the same post, a peremptory order that care should be taken to cut off all the salaries of the duke's servants, to the very day of his death. It was with the utmost difficulty that the king's favourite, Keppell, prevailed on him to allow the payments up to the Michaelmas quarter-day. Nor can there be a doubt but that the sole consideration of the approach of that pay-day, induced his gracious majesty to write his condolence, for he could not cut off the salaries without appearing conscious that the princess's son was dead. The princess Anne, shocked at the disgusting contest that ensued concerning the payment of her lost child's servants, determined to distress herself 1 Coxe's Life of Marlborough, from the original French. rather than cashier one of them. When it is remembered that parliament allowed William III. a sum for the duke of Gloucester's establishment more than thrice as much as he disbursed, his conduct appears the more revolting. It is said by the same authority that he murmured not a little at the pensions he allowed to the old servants of his late queen. Once more there was some movement among the lower class of coffee-house politicians, who knew nothing of the king's habits of life, to persuade him into matrimony; they got up an address, on the death of the duke of Gloucester, earnestly petitioning him to marry for the good of the nation. The story was revived, which was current in 1697 that, while staying at Brussels, the king had "coquetted" so much with a German princess as to induce hopes of his serious intentions of taking a second queen-a princess of Denmark was likewise mentioned as a candidate for his hand.' The king remained, however, without any such intentions, sick and very sullen in his retirement at Loo. Towards the winter his kinswoman, the electress Sophia, visited him at Loo, accompanied by her daughter, the electress of Brandenburgh, for the ostensible purpose of seeking his assistance in elevating the country of Brandenburgh into the kingdom of Prussia; of course the people of England supposed that the visit was for the purpose of settling the reversion of the crowns of Great Britain and Ireland on the next protestant heir. It is certain that king William had urged some steps to be taken on her part, for a letter from the electress Sophia is existing, evidently in reply to a proposition of the kind. Her disinterestedness is evident therein, since she earnestly recommended to the consideration of the king and country, the expatriated prince of Wales. As her letter is addressed to Mr. Stepney, who had been envoy to Hanover, and was one of the under secretaries of state, this letter may be considered as official. It had the effect of incensing king William, who showed his displeasure by paying the electress only one formal public visit on her arrival at Loo, and departed for England the next day; not very courteously leaving her directly she had commenced her visit to him. Many weeks after the funeral of her only child, the 1 Biographical Anecdotes, MS. fol. 58, vol. iv. p. 224. 2 Hardwicke State Papers. |