|

|
Henrietta Countess of Oxford (2)
By Richard W. Goulding, F.S.A. Librarian to His Grace the Duke of Portland,
K.G.
HER MARRIAGE AND ESTRANGEMENT FROM HER MOTHER.
When Lady Henrietta announced it as her fixed determination to marry
Edward Lord Harley, the Duchess parted from her "in great displeasure," refusing
to countenance the alliance in any way.
The wedding took place at Wimpole, on Monday, 31st August, 1713, and
the husband made the following record of it in his Diary: "I was
married between a 11 & 12 o'clock at noon, to the Lady Henrietta
Cavendishe Holles by Dr. Mat. Brailsford, Dean of Welles. Lord Cheney1 gave her. Ld. Treasurer,3 Mr. Auditor Harley, Mr. John Morley, Mr. William
Wenman, Mrs. Anne Grant and Mrs. Judith Brown were Present in the Drawing
Room at Wimple in Cambridgeshire. Ld. Cheney went away before Dinner." On
the following day, the entry in the Diary is: "John Barroughby the
Groom was sent with Letters to the Dutchess of Newcastle then at London." These
letters did not mollify Her Grace, who considered that the estates which
had been her father's should have been hers on her husband's death, and
should not have become her daughter's by what she called the "pretended
agreement" with Lord Pelham. She said
it was a "wicked marriage," and she called the conduct of the
Harleys "unjust brutishness," begging all who wished to be
her friends "never to name the Harleys nor their allies to me, they
giving me hourly reason to abhor them."
So bitter was the unhappy estrangement that, when the Duchess made her
will in October, 1715, she disinherited her daughter so far as she could.
In that will she states that her husband had settled upon her his estate
at Orton in co. Huntingdon, expressing a desire that she should give
the same to their daughter, if by her duty and obedience she should merit
and deserve the same; but, continues the Duchess: "it is with the
greatest grief that I reflect upon her undutiful and disobedient behaviour
to me since her father's death, and I declare that she hath not merited
or deserved the said estate of me, or any thing that I have the power
of disposing of."
The Duchess died on the 24th December, 1716, but about two months before
her demise she and her daughter made peace with one another. On the 4th
November, 1716, Humfrey Wanley, Lord Harley's librarian, wrote to his
lordship: "I am extremely rejoyced to hear of my Ladies and your
Reconciliation to my lady Duchess. I am sure nothing in this world could
be more agreable to, or of more Satisfaction & Comfort to her noble
Ladiship than this thing." Wanley thought that the occasion was
one to be celebrated, and he, therefore, four days later, asked leave
to use one gallon of Lord Harley's brandy. He said that he had got some
Virginia Snake-root to mix with part of it, and twelve lemons, "being
minded to have a Sneaker3 here, in rejoycing for this most
happy Reconciliation which I hope may be for Everlasting." He
adds that he will in no wise lay his hand upon his Lordship's brandy
until he has his noble fiat.
The marriage gave great satisfaction to the Harleys and their friends,
and some of the congratulatory letters written on the occasion have survived.
Queen Anne wrote to the Earl of Oxford: "I wish you much joy of
haveing at last marryed your son, & hope you are soe just to me as
to beleeve I shall always be very glad of any good fortune that happens
to you or your famely."4 Dr. John Arbuthnot said that
he "should not have had a much more sensible pleasure," if
his own son had been the happy man. Matthew Prior wrote: "I congratulate
your Lordship most sincerely upon my dear Ld. Harley's marriage, for
I really love him as much as if he were (what you give me leave to call
him) my Brother."5
Dean Swift, had, on the 8th November, 1711, heard a rumour which had "got
about all the town," to the effect that the marriage had taken place
on the preceding day. He found, however, as he states in his Journal
to Stella, that it was not true. But, he continues, " I hope it
will be so; for I know it has been privately managing this long time
. . . Lord Harley is a very valuable young gentleman; and they say the
girl is handsome, and has good sense, but red hair." It is amusing
to compare this description of her with the high-flown language of the
verses Swift addressed to Lord Harley when the marriage did take place.
Lady Henrietta in those verses becomes a celestial nymph
"as Aurora bright,
And chaster than the Queen of Night."
HER HUSBAND.
On the death of his father in 1724, Edward Lord Harley succeeded to
the title of "Earl of Oxford & Earl Mortimer." During the
whole of his adult life he was a keen collector of books, manuscripts,
pictures, miniatures, busts, coins, medals, gems, curiosities and antiquities
of all kinds. He made tours through many parts of England, acquiring
a vast amount of information about persons, places, works of art and
monuments of antiquity, but he did not live to methodize his notes. He
was born on the 2nd June, 1689, and he died on the 16th June, 1741. Most
of his collections were dispersed by auction, but his manuscripts were
sold to the British Museum. His extensive reading caused Matthew Prior
to say of him in 1720:
"Fame counting thy books, my dear Harley, shall tell
No man had
so many who knew them so well."6
Among his correspondents and friends he numbered many whose names are
redolent of the learning and culture of the reigns of Queen Anne and
the early Georges.
Keen as he was as a collector, and shrewd as he was in making
bargains for books (ably assisted in these matters by the prudence
of Humfrey
Wanley), he appears to have been lax and easy-going in the management
of his estates, but the following gossip of the Earl of Orrery to Dean
Swift may be dismissed as gross exaggeration. Orrery wrote, 7th July,
1741: "Poor Lord Oxford is gone to those regions from whence travellers
never return . . . His lady brought him five hundred thousand pounds,
four of which have been sacrificed to indolence, good-nature, and want
of worldly-wisdom." When once a fiction of this kind has appeared
in print, it re-appears time after time, and this particular statement
is repeated in the Dictionary of National Biography, and in Mrs. Climenson's
Elizabeth Montagu, 1906, p. 8.
 |
 |
|
PLATE III. LADY HENRIETTA HARLEY.
By C. Boit, after Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1714. (Welbeck Abbey Miniatures, no. 195.)
|
EDWARD HARLEY, SECOND
EARL OF OXFORD, AND HIS DAUGHTER MARGARET.
By C. F. Zincke, 1727. (Welbeck Abbey Miniatures, no. 201.)
|
HER MERIT AS A WIFE.
Her husband's appreciation of her good qualities is feelingly expressed
in a letter which he wrote to her when he was at Down Hall, 9th June,
1728. Adverting to a letter which he had already written to her, he says
that it "flowed from a heart truly touched with your most indulgent
expressions, but far short of what are due to you from me: but to return
to your letter, every time I read it over, which is very often, it fills
me with the utmost sense of gratitude to Heaven for bestowing so inestimable
a blessing upon me, and I do assure you that I am truly sensible that
my happiness entirely depends upon you, and what enjoyment I have in
this life reflects solely from you . . My only study is to merit your
approbation."
HER CHILDREN.
The first child born to Lord Harley and his wife was a daughter, Margaret
Cavendish Harley, commonly called Peggy, to whom Matthew Prior wrote
the charming poetical epistle beginning "My noble, lovely little
Peggy."
She was born in 1715, on her mother's birthday, February 11th; and on
the 11th July, 1734, she married William Bentinck, second Duke of Portland
(grandson of William Bentinck, Earl of Portland, the confidential friend
of King William III). They were the parents of the Marquess of Titchfield
(afterwards third Duke of Portland), who was the recipient of letters,
some of which will be quoted on later pages.
Ten years after the birth of Peggy, a son was born to them on the 18th
October, 1725. The Christian names given to him were Henry Cavendish,
but his life lasted four days only. The sorrowful parents caused a bust
of the babe to be executed by J. M, Rysbrack, and this bust is still
at Welbeck Abbey.
HER EXCELLENT QUALITIES AND HER ALLEGED DULLNESS.
The proverb "Give a dog a bad name and hang him" indicates
a weakness to which compilers of biographical sketches are prone. They
find that an unfavourable or disparaging adjective has been applied to
the person about whom they are writing, and they straightway accept it
as true, seeking no corroboration, and making no independent investigation.
They summarize the person in the adjective, just as John Bunyan summarily
portrayed a certain unsatisfactory pilgrim by the simple statement that
she was "a young woman—her name was Dull." This seems to be
the explanation of the depreciatory adjective dull often applied to the
Countess of Oxford.
Lady Bute, the daughter of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, when speaking
of the Countess to her mother, exclaimed: "How can you be so fond
of that stupid woman? "The question brought upon her a sharp reprimand
against rash judgement, ending with: "Lady Oxford is not shining,
but she has more in her than such giddy things as you and your companions
can discern."7 With
this, and the statement quoted in footnote 2, for authority, the writer
of her husband's life in the Dictionary of National Biography says of
her: "A dull worthy woman, the Countess disliked most of the wits
who surrounded her husband, and she hated Pope."8 In
like manner, George Paston9 speaks of her as "the dull
but estimable Lady Oxford."
She might not be sparkling, or brilliant, or witty, but she had far
more valuable qualities that sprang from her kind heart, her amiable
disposition and her affectionate nature. The unkind adjective dull does
scant justice to her many excellences and attainments, and to the unobtrusive
manner in which she shared her husband's interests, accompanying him
on some of his antiquarian tours, and receiving with delight his accounts
of his observations when she could not go with him. It is wrong that
this should be the stock adjective wherewith to describe a woman whose
charm won the hearts of a large circle of friends. Dr. William Stratford,
writing 24th July, 1714, said: "I never knew any one who had the
honour to know her that was not from that moment sincerely her servant."
Considerateness for the feelings of others was one of her most prominent
characteristics. Dr. Johnson had a friend, Oliver Edwards, who tried
to be a philosopher, but found that "cheerfulness was always breaking
in." In like manner, whenever the Countess tried to be in an admonitory
mood, amiability was always breaking in. On one occasion she had to reprove
her attorney for failure to comply with her directions.
Her mild chiding occurs in the early part of the letter she wrote to
him, but at the end she cannot forbear adding: "I excuse you sending
the books hither, as it is a possible mistake."
Where she gave affection, she gave it whole-heartedly and without reserve.
Where she gave friendship, she gave it in all sincerity.
She had good friends who loved her, and whom she loved, and probably
she was one of the friends of whom Matthew Prior thought, when he wrote
: "Of all the gifts the gods afford If we may take old Tully's word,
The greatest is a friend."
[<Previous] [Next>]
|