Upon leaving the King, Sir Robert Walpole encountered Lord Hervey whom he told that the resolution of his Majesty was to leave the child with the Princess, and not to take it away as George the First had taken the children of his son, when he quarrelled with him and turned him out of St. James’s Palace. The reason given was this:
“Lest any accident might happen to this little Royal animal, and the world in that case accuse the King and Queen of having murdered it, for the sake of the Duke of Cumberland.”[48] Sir Robert continued that he liked to hear other people’s opinions as well as his own, and then and there desired Lord Hervey to sit down and write exactly what he would advise the King to say if he stood in his—Sir Robert’s—position. This Lord Hervey was overjoyed to do as it gave him an opportunity to show his resentment against the Prince.
It was drawn up in the form of a letter to be signed by the King as follows, in Lord Hervey’s words:
“It is in vain for you to hope that I can be so far deceived by your empty professions, wholly inconsistent with all your actions, as to think that they in any manner palliate or excuse a series of the most insolent and premeditated indignities offered to me and the Queen, your Mother.
“You never gave the least notice to me or the Queen of the Princess’s being breeding or with child till about three weeks before the time when you yourself have owned you expected her to be brought to bed, and removed her from the place of my residence for that purpose. You twice in one week carried her away from Hampton Court with an avowed design of having her lie-in in town, without consulting me or the Queen, or so much as communicating your intention to either of us. At your return you industriously concealed everything relating to this important affair from our knowledge; and last of all, you clandestinely hurried the Princess to St. James’s in circumstances not fit to be named, and less fit for such an expedition.
“This extravagant and undutiful behaviour in a matter of such great consequence as the birth of an heir to my crown, to the manifest peril of the Princess and her child (whilst you pretend your regard for her was your motive) inconsistent with the natural right of all parents, and in violation of your double duty to me, as your father and as your King, is what cannot be excused by any false plea, so repugnant to the whole tenor of your conduct, of the innocence of your intentions, or atoned for by specious pretences or plausible expressions.
“Your behaviour for a long time has been so devoid of duty and regard to me, even before this last open proof you have given to all the world of your contempt for me and my authority, that I have long been justly offended at it; nor will I suffer any part of any of my palaces to be any longer the resort and refuge of all those whom discontent, disappointment or disaffection have made the avowed opposers of all my measures; who espouse you only to distress me, and who call you the head, whilst they make you the instrument of a faction that acts with no other view than to weaken my authority in every particular, and can have no other end in their success but weakening the common interest of my whole family.
“My pleasure therefore is, that you and all your family remove from St. James’s as soon as ever the safety and convenience of the Princess will permit.
“I will leave the case of my grand-daughter to the Princess till the time comes when I shall think it proper to give directions for her education.
“To this I will receive no reply. When you shall, by a consistency in your words and actions, show that you repent of your past conduct, and are resolved to return to your duty, parental affection may then and not till then, induce me to forgive what parental justice now obliges me to resent.”