Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 1 - Section III
III. Mainhardt, Duke of Schomberg and Leinster.
(Being the first Duke of Leinster and third Duke of Schomberg.)
Count Mainhardt de Schomberg, second son of the Marshal, was born at Cologne on June 30, 1641. We find him in the Portuguese service under his father. In 1665 he had the military rank of major, and was captain of a company in his father’s cavalry regiment. At that time the irruption into Spain was going forward, and San Lucar de Guadiana was taken. At the head of his company he met Rougemont’s Regiment of Cavalry near that town, drove them before him two leagues and upwards, and upon their making a stand, defeated them. He was afterwards a colonel of cavalry in the French army.
In 1686, on taking refuge in Prussia, he was made a general of cavalry in the army of the Elector of Brandenburg, and colonel of a corps of dragoons. He remained in these posts when his father and Count Charles joined the Prince of Orange in 1688.
As already stated, it was for this reason that Charles was named first in the destination of the Marshal’s Dukedom of Schomberg in the peerage of England. Charles was unmarried, and ready for such an adventurous expedition as the Prince of Orange had planned. Mainhardt had married, on the 4th of January 1683, Caroline Elizabeth, Countess Rangrave Palatine, daughter of the Elector Charles Louis. On the 15th December of that year, his son, Charles, came into the world. Subsequently three daughters were born, named Caroline, Frederica, and Mary. Count Mainhardt was not prepared to remove with his infantile family to an island of the sea. He had not learned the Englishman’s axiom, that every sensible man should live in England if he can. So that when English ducal rank was bestowed on his father, it was not known that Mainhardt would ever solicit naturalisation among the English people.
The following entry was made by Luttrell in his Historical Relation: “London, 12 August 1689, Count Menard de Schomberg, General of the Brandenburg Horse, is coming over.” His German name, Mainhardt, was translated by the French into Menard and Mesnart, and by the English into Maynard; and the various modes of spelling were further varied according to the writer’s guess. The French refugees spoke highly of him as a cavalry officer. One declares, “Count Menard de Schomberg is exceedingly experienced and skilful in the art of war — in charges, combats, and pitched battles — possessing courage, activity, and admirable energy — capable of successfully commanding not only a corps, but a great army.” He was enrolled in the English army as a General of Horse, and received the Colonelcy of the 4th Horse on the 10th April 1690.
Mainhardt earned much praise at the Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. He carried out the part assigned to him successfully. Ably supported by Douglas and the Earl of Portland, he crossed the Boyne at the Fords of Slane to engage the enemy’s cavalry, and to facilitate the movements of the centre. Incensed at the death of his father, he pursued the enemy for several miles “with all the fury that a noble and just resentment could inspire,” until Lord Portland communicated the king’s command to return to the camp. The Duke of Berwick wrote that Count Mainhardt, in thus fiercely revenging the death of the old Duke of Schomberg, was a better general than King William, who suffered the Irish to retreat without molestation. The king’s object, however, was to avoid bloodshed, especially in consideration of his father-in-law’s person.
At the time of the festivities in Holland in February 1691 in honour of King William III., the king held consultations with foreign ambassadors as well as with his ministers and general officers concerning the war with France. Among the generals in attendance at Court, Count Mainhardt de Schomberg is mentioned. On the 25th of April he received letters-patent of naturalisation for himself and his son, “Mainhardt Comte de Schonburg et Carolo filio suo.” In order to commemorate his share in the conquest of Ireland, and to put him more on a footing with his younger brother, their Majesties created him Duke of Leinster, 3d March 1692. It appears from the Irish Patent Rolls, that the King’s Letter was dated at Breda, 18th March 1691, giving him the titles of Baron of Mullingar in the County of Westmeath, Earl of Bangor, and Duke of Leinster. On the official receipt of the King’s Letter, he was Duke of Leinster by courtesy. The Patent, which followed nearly a year afterwards, bore that William and Mary granted to Mainhardt Comte de Schomberg, on account of his very many and distinguished services to them, for many years past, rendered in this kingdom and in parts beyond the sea, the state, grade, dignity, title, and honour of Baron of Taragh in the county of Meath, Earl of Bangor in the county of Down, and Duke of Leinster in the kingdom of Ireland.[1]
The king, not venturing to place his sole reliance on native officers in the midst of Jacobite schemes and schemers, resolved that the chief command of the regiments on duty at home should be given to Ruvigny Viscount Galway in Ireland, and in England to Schomberg Duke of Leinster. The Duke was appointed on the 23d April 1692 “lieutenant-general of their Majesties’ Forces of England, Wales, and Berwick-on-Tweed.” His portrait (engraved by Smith, after Kneller) styles him “Maynard, Duke of Leinster, Count of Schonberg and Mertola, Grandee of Portugal, General of their Majesties’ Forces of Great Britain,” &c. There may have been a new commission, adding “Scotland” to his command, issued soon after the first. His brother Duke Charles’ will seems to indicate this. On the 2d May he was ordered to “mark out a camp near Southampton.”
We have already glanced at Duke Charles’ irruption into the south of France. Simultaneously, a descent upon the northern provinces of that kingdom was to be made under the command of the Duke of Leinster. A large force embarked at St. Helen’s, and on the 28th July all the generals went on board the “Breda” man-of-war. The regiments of La Melonière, Cambon, and Belcastel were, after the pacification of Ireland, transferred to foreign service in the Duke of Leinster’s expedition. By the help of Captain Robert Parker’s Military Memoirs (London, 1747), and D’Auvergne’s Campaigne in the Spanish Netherlands, a.d. 1692 (London, 1693), we can follow its track more accurately than other authors have done. “In the month of May 1692 (says Parker), Lord Galway embarked at Waterford with twenty-three regiments of foot, of which ours was one. We landed at Bristol, from whence we marched to Southampton, and there embarked, in order to make a descent into France under the command of the Duke of Leinster, second son to the old Duke Schomberg. We had the grand fleet of England and Holland to attend us; but as the famous sea fight of La Hogue, in which the naval force of France was in a great measure destroyed, had been fought but three weeks before, the French Court expected a descent, and had drawn a great number of the regular troops and militia to the sea coast; and we found it so strongly guarded at all parts, that in a council of war which was held on that occasion, neither Admirals nor Generals were for landing the troops. So when we had sailed along the shore as far as Ushant, we returned and came to an anchor in the Downs. The King was then with the army in Flanders; here then we waited until the return of an Express, which the Queen had sent to know His Majesty’s pleasure with respect to the troops on board. . . . . Upon the return of the Express we sailed to Ostend, where the troops landed, and marched from thence to Furness and Dixmuyde, the enemy having quitted them on our approach. We continued there until we had fortified them and put them in a state of defence, leaving garrisons in them.” D’Auvergne informs us that on the 1st of September (n.s.), the Duke of Leinster arrived at Ostend, bringing fifteen regiments, including La Melonière’s, Belcastel’s, and Cambon’s; and in a few days he was joined by a detachment under the command of Lieutenant-General Talmash, consisting of six regiments sent by King William from headquarters. The re-fortification of Furnes and Dixmuyde (the French having, before retreating, demolished the former fortifications), was conducted by Colonel Cambon. An adventure happened in a ditch at the bastion by Ypres Port in Dixmuyde:—
“The ordinary detachments of the Earl of Bath’s Regiment and the Fusiliers, being at work in enlarging the ditch, found an old hidden treasure, which quickly stopped the soldiers working, who fell all a scrambling in a heap one upon another, some bringing off a very good booty, some gold and some silver, several Jacobus’s and sovereigns being found by the soldiers, and a great many old pieces of silver of Henri II., Charles IX., Henri III., Henri IV.’s coin, which are now hardly to be found in France. The people of the town suppose that this money belonged to one Elfort, a gentleman dead many years ago, who buried his treasure (when the Mareschal de Rantzau took the town) in the Bernardine Nuns’ garden (this ground where the money was found having been formerly in that garden), which Count de Monterey caused to be demolished; and they think that there might have been about 900 Pounds Groot, which makes the value of 450 guineas (English). This Elfort left it by Will to his children, and the marks where to find it, but his children could never discover it.”
For the same reasons as those which accounted for the failure in the south, this descent effected nothing, except a slight diversion in the neighbourhood of Dunkirk. The Duke of Leinster returned to England on the 25th of October.
As a soldier of fortune, he emulated the ingenuity of the other refugees, in speculation for eking out his income, as we may gather from the following statement by Luttrell:—
“1692, 8th Sept. Yesterday, the Duke of Leinster’s engine for working of wrecks was experimented on in the Thames, where one Bradley, a waterman, walked at bottom under water till he came to Somerset House, and discoursed by the way out of a leather pipe; a boat went before him to blow air to him; he had a tin case fastened about his neck, with two leather pipes.” In 1693 (10th March), their Majesties, by royal letters-patent, granted to the enterprising Duke “all wrecks, jetsam, flotsam, lagan, goods derelict, riches, bullion, plate, gold, silver coyne, barrs or piggs of silver, ingots of gold, merchandizes, and other goods and chattells whatsoever, which heretofore have been or hereafter shall be left, cast away, wrecked, or lost in or upon the rocks, shelves, shoales, seas, rivers, or banks in America, between the latitudes of 12o S. and 40o N., by him to be recovered at any time within 20 years after the date hereof (Bermudas and Cartagena, and Jamaica in America excepted) — one full tenth reserved for the King and Queen.”
Luttrell said as to this range upon our globe’s surface, “it includes many wrecks the patentees know where to find; they will fish this summer upon them.” Probably some delay took place, for under date 19th December 1699, Secretary Vernon wrote — “The ‘Dolphin,’ Captain Hunter commander, is to look for the wreck granted to the Duke of Schomberg.”
To the English dukedom he succeeded on the death of the second duke, his brother, in Piedmont; he took his seat in the House of Peers on the 4th, and proved his brother’s will on the 19th of November 1693. His son, and apparent heir, Charles, Earl of Bangor, who was in his tenth year, thus became by courtesy the Marquis of Harwich. The family seem to have been in favour at court. The Duchess of Schomberg and Leinster was deservedly esteemed. On Wednesday, 19th December 1693, she is registered as a sponsor at the baptism of William, son of Messire Jean Rabault, a chevalier, His Majesty being godfather, and the proud father signing himself “Jean Rabault de la Courdrière Bouchetière.” On another occasion she was the godmother of a converted Mahometan, baptized in London. Both baptisms were in Swallow Street French Church.
The Duke of Schomberg was made a Privy Councillor on the 9th of May 1695. His time seems to have been occupied with various court-martials and tours of inspection of military quarters. The even current of his affairs was sadly changed, in 1696, by his wife’s declining health. He arranged to spend the summer at Bath. The Duchess died on the 28th June, at Kensington, in her thirty-seventh year.[2]
He had succeeded to his brother’s dukedom, with the annuity of £4000, and the claim for the capital grant from the treasury. With exemplary prudence, he solicited from the King a formal gift, engrossed upon the Patent Rolls. This he obtained on the 22d December 1696; and as it is a document settling some biographical questions, I shall transcribe the larger portion of it in modernised spelling.
“William the third, &c. To the Commissioners of our Treasury, &c. Whereas, by our letters of privy seal, bearing date 15th February, in the 5th year of our reign, in consideration of the great, faithful, and acceptable services to us performed by Frederick, Duke of Schonberg, late Master-General of our Ordnance, and Captain-General of our land forces, deceased, and more especially reflecting upon his most prudent conduct under us, not only in the hazardous attempt which we had made into this kingdom for redeeming the same from Popery and arbitrary power, but also in his continued endeavours to serve us in order to the completing a prosperous, happy, and settled condition of affairs, and considering the great losses he had sustained, on account of professing the Protestant religion, by the confiscation of his lands and possessions, and loss of his places and employments in France, and by the destruction of his castles, lands, and territories in the county Palatine of the Rhine, in Germany, and for other great and weighty considerations, being disposed to confer upon the late Duke and his posterity a reward for his merits, which might create a lasting remembrance of the gracious sense we had of his service before mentioned, —
“We did fully resolve and determine to bestow upon the said late Duke, or trustees by his nomination, the full sum of £100,000 of lawful English money, to be paid out of the treasure which was, or should be, in the receipt of our Exchequer, by certain portions and at certain days and times now past, which sum was to be laid out in purchasing Lands of Inheritance that were to be settled on Trustees and their heirs, as that the profits thereof might be enjoyed by the said Frederick late Duke of Schonberg during his life, and after his decease by Charles then the third son of the said Duke, who hath since been Charles Duke of Schonberg and is deceased, and by heirs male of the body of the said Charles, and for default of such issue then by our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin and councillor Maynard now Duke of Schonberg and Leinster, and the heirs male of the body of the said Maynard lawfully begotten or to be begotten, and for default of such issue then by the heirs male of the body of the said late Duke Frederick lawfully begotten or to be begotten, and for default of such issue then by the right heirs of the said late Duke Frederick for ever.
**********
“But the Grant which was intended by us as aforesaid, not passing under our Great Seal, by reason of the sudden departure of the said Duke Frederick for the kingdom of Ireland, where he was slain in our service at the memorable Battle of the Boyne, and by reason that the necessity of our affairs would not admit the speedy payment of so considerable a sum of money, we were graciously pleased to allow to the said Charles, late Duke of Schonberg, the yearly sum of £4000, being after the rate of £4 per cent, per annum, for the interest or forbearance of the said sum of £100,000, and the said yearly sum hath been satisfied and paid by us until 31st December 1692 — since which, time the said Duke Charles (who hath also been slain in our service, to wit, at the Battle of Marsaglia in Piedmont) is deceased without heirs male or female of his body begotten, so that the said Maynard, now Duke of Schonberg and Leinster, is the person who, by the limitations, trusts or appointments in the said intended grant (in case the same had passed under seal and had been duly complied with) would at this time have taken benefit thereby to him and the heirs-male of his body, with power to make provisions for any wife, daughters, or younger sons, as aforesaid.
“We did direct, authorise and command that, out of the rents issues profits and revenues from time to time arising and accruing in or by the General Letter Office or Post Office, or Office of Postmaster General, payment should be made unto the said Maynard, Duke of Schonberg and Leinster (who is also Marquis of Harwich, Earl of Brentford, of the Holy Empire, and Mertola, Baron of Teys, Grandee of Portugal, General of our Horse, and Commander-in-Chief of our Forces) and the heirs male of his body, the yearly sum of £4000.
**********
“And whereas the said Maynard, Duke of Schonberg and Leinster, hath humbly besought us, in regard our affairs will not yet admit the payment of so considerable a sum as the said £100,000, that we would be graciously pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England to confirm unto him and the heirs male of his body the yearly sum of £4000 in the same manner as the same was granted to him and them by our said Letters of Privy Seal, to which we being graciously pleased to condescend,
“Know ye therefore that We&c.&c.&c.&c. do grant unto the said, &c, one clear annual or yearly payment or sum of £4000 of lawful English money, to commence from such time as the same hath been paid and satisfied before the date of these presents.
**********
“And we do hereby, for us our heirs and successors, promise and declare, that as soon as the condition of our affairs will admit, we, our heirs and successors will pay and satisfy the principal sum of £100,000.
**********
At Westminster the twenty-second day of December (8th Wm. III.).”
In the arrangements that followed the peace of Ryswick, Schomberg’s employments continued as before. In November 1698 Luttrell writes, “Portland House in the Pall Mall is rebuilt, and will be richly furnished for the Duke of Schonberg, General of the forces in England.” On the 31st December, the Duke gave “a splendid entertainment to the French Ambassador, the Duke of Ormond, and other persons of quality.”
This was the mansion that was thereafter called Schomberg House; we digress for a moment to trace its history. It was after the Duke’s death inhabited by his sons-in-law the Earls of Holdernesse and Fitzwalter. One of the arrangements made on the accession of George III. has been recorded thus:— “The Duke of Cumberland took Schomberg House (late Lord Fitzwalter’s) in Pall Mall.” Mr. Baynes (Life of Brousson, p. 368) says in a note:— “On the south side of Pall Mall being now (1853) Nos. 81 and 82, there is an interesting specimen of a ducal residence of the time of William and Mary. . . . Schomberg House. It was afterwards the residence of William Duke of Cumberland, the hero of Culloden. Subsequently the middle part of the mansion was occupied by Dodsley, the eminent bookseller, and recently by Messrs. Payne and Foss. Gainsborough for some time lived in the western wing of the mansion, and here executed some of his best pictures.” In 1868 I found that one-half of this ancient fabric had been pulled down.
We find the Duke’s name honourably mixed up in a deplorable affair, namely, the dying scene of poor Conway Seymer, who had been mortally wounded in a duel. “20th June 1699, the Duke of Schomberg introduced Capt. Kirk to ask pardon of Conway Seymer, Esq., who told him he forgave him with all his heart, and died next morning.”
Through negotiations based upon the Peace of Ryswick, the French king restored to the family Marshal Schomberg’s French estate. But when Duke Mainhardt thought he had secured it, his eldest brother, Count Frederic, stepped in as a competitor. Our Ambassador, the Earl of Manchester, wrote officially to Secretary the Earl of Jersey, from Paris, August 29, 1699:
“I believe the Duke of Schomberg will apply to your Lordship in relation to his affairs. I have done what was proper, having recommended it to the minister. But now the dispute lies between the eldest brother in Germany and himself, who has obtained to have two-thirds, according to the custom of France. They do intend to appeal from this sentence; but as this is a matter between two brothers, I shall be glad to know whether the king does only concern himself for the Duke of Schomberg.”
The following is a letter which Schomberg addressed to the Ambassador:—
“My Lord, — I no sooner received the favour of your Lordship’s letter, but according to your desire I spoke to my Lord Jersey, who has since told me he had signified His Majesty’s pleasure to your Lordship thereupon. And that your Lordship may be thoroughly instructed in the matter, I must further acquaint you that the matter in debate is only between my brother and myself. For, by the treaty of Peace, the estate is to return to the family, and, as your Lordship has been already informed, the King of France has put me in possession, which being disputed by my brother, was the occasion of my suing for the King of France’s protection, that by His Majesty’s authority I might freely enjoy the possession thereof, without being put to the charge of so many lawsuits by my brother, who is now actually at law with me, and endeavours to dispossess me of my undeniable right. Wherefore, my request to your Lordship is, that you would recommend my particular interest to the King of France, and that His Majesty will please to give orders that I may be continued in quiet possession of the estate which is my undeniable right. But were that disputable, my services both here and in France ought to give me the preference. My Lord, I have given your Lordship as short an account as the subject would permit, and do not at all doubt of success therein, if your Lordship does heartily espouse my interest, which will lay a perpetual obligation upon, &c, &c.
Lord Manchester announced the Duke’s success in a letter dated from Paris, 23d June 1700:
“The Duke of Schomberg has carried his cause in the Parliament against his brother in Germany, who pretended to have a right to two thirds; but the whole is adjudged to the former.”[3]
At the funeral of King William, on the 12th of April 1702, Schomberg was one of the six dukes who supported the pall. In Queen Anne’s reign, he was still in favour at the palace. He presented her consort, the Prince of Denmark, Generalissimo of the Forces, with a war-horse valued at 300 guineas; this was in June 1702. He still pressed his claims as his father’s heir, on the English nation. A second grant in his favour, dated 6th May 1703, appears on the Patent Rolls. In it the Queen narrates how the Duke of Schomberg had represented to her that King William, by a warrant dated 14th October 1701, had again asserted that his affairs could not yet admit of the payment of £100,000, and that “our said late royall brother” did “therefore and for other good causes and considerations” grant another £1000 of annuity, making a total of £5000 per annum to commence from Midsummer, 1701. “The demise of our said royal brother happened before the said intended grant actually passed under the Great Seal of England;” therefore, we the Queen grant the additional £1000, to be paid annually, during pleasure.
In 1703, the Schomberg estates in France must have been forfeited again. This was the year of the Methuen Treaty with Portugal, which was signed on the 16th of May and ratified on the 14th of July. Great Britain and Portugal then joined the Emperor of Germany and the Duke of Savoy in the Grand Alliance against France, and began to take part in the War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor Joseph’s younger son, Archduke Charles of Austria, was proclaimed King of Spain, and Britain’s great practical aim was to establish him at Madrid upon the Spanish throne. Some compilers of history say, that the Confederates, in setting up Charles, were attempting to dethrone a native king. But the Bourbon Philip V. (who was Duke of Anjou in France, and a grandson of Louis XIV.) was not a native sovereign. Like Philip’s, Charles’s relationship to the extinct royal family of Spain was constituted by that family’s intermarriages with foreigners. The latter, on the ground of compacts by which the Bourbon family could not reign over Spain, was the true heir, and was styled by the Allies, King Charles III. A British fleet conveyed him to Lisbon. The Duke of Schomberg was designated Captain-General of the troops in British pay, which were to act in concert with the Portuguese to put him in possession of his kingdom.
The English Government ordered the Duke to raise twenty companies of dragoons to form a regiment, its officers to be French Protestant refugees. He selected officers “whose valour and conduct he had been eye-witness of;” but a counter-order came out recalling the commissions. He complained of this disappointment, and was consoled by being elected a Knight of the Garter (11th August 1703). On the 2d of September he was installed at Windsor with the usual solemnities. He did not embark for Portugal until the following year.
The employment of the third Duke of Schomberg in the forefront of this war was the occasion of the translation and publication in England of D’Ablancourt’s Memoirs of the campaigns of the first Duke in Portugal.
“Nothing,” said the English publisher, “can so much justify the fitness of Her Majesty’s choice of his Grace the Duke of Schomberg to command Her Majesty’s Forces and those of her allies in that kingdom, as the knowledge of the glorious actions performed by his father in his presence, and by His Grace himself after so brave a pattern, which will inspire the officers and soldiers who shall have the honour to follow him to the war with such an entire confidence and assurance in their General that nothing will be difficult that he commands. His Grace will be received there as their second saviour and deliverer, with the loudest acclamations of the joyful multitude impatient to be led on by him to victory and glory. It is to be presumed that his sword will be as fatal to the Spaniards as the accents of his name are pleasant to the Portuguese, who hold it to this day in a degree of veneration very little inferior to idolatry.”
These glowing predictions were not fulfilled. On his arrival at Lisbon in the spring of 1704 he found that the old routine of giving the chief command of the army to the Portuguese governors of provinces was still rigidly followed. The king, although the same Pedro who owed his crown to the late Marshal, showed none of the expected gratitude, but rather humoured the reckless jealousy of the Portuguese officers. Marlborough had written on the 8th of August 1703, “I take for granted that the Dutch troops are to be commanded by the Duke of Schomberg;” but the Dutch General would submit to no such agreement. When Schomberg thought that he had obtained from the king the rank equivalent to Marshal, and implying supreme command, he found that the same rank had been given to Fagel, the Dutch General. He, however, lost no time in issuing the following manifesto:—
“Pursuant to Her Majesty’s warrant, dated 14th March 1703-4, authorising and empowering me to publish in the most effectual manner Her Majesty’s most gracious intention of pardoning all such of her subjects of the kingdom of Ireland and of other parts of Her Majesty’s dominions, who, being now in the service of her enemies, will quit the same to come over to Charles III. King of Spain, or any other of Her Majesty’s Allies, — I do hereby in Hsr Majesty’s name proclaim and declare, that all such Her Majesty’s subjects, both officers and soldiers, who are at present in the service of the French King or of the Duke of Anjou, and will return to their duty and come over to the King of Spain or any other of Her Majesty’s Allies, shall have Her Majesty’s most gracious pardon for all crimes and offences committed by them in adhering to or serving under her enemies, or for any crime and offence relating thereunto; and that such of them as are qualified to serve in Her Majesty’s Forces shall be received and entertained in the same quality that they enjoyed in the service they leave; and that such as by reason of their religion cannot serve in Her Majesty’s Forces shall be received and entertained in the service of the King of Spain or of such other of Her Majesty’s Allies where they shall best like, in the same quality and with the same pay as they enjoyed under Her Majesty’s enemies. And to the end, that Her Majesty’s most gracious intentions may be the more effectual, care is taken that the Governors of the frontier garrisons and that the Generals of the Forces will receive and subsist them immediately upon their coming in, and give them all further encouragement.
“Given at Lisbon, 25th April 1704, the third year of Her Majesty’s reign,
King Pedro wrote to England declaring himself dissatisfied with Schomberg, though unable to vindicate the Portuguese officers. Secretary Sir Charles Hedges wrote to our Ambassador in Piedmont, the Right Hon. Richard Hill, from London, 23d June:— “The King of Portugal seeming dissatisfied with the Duke of Schomberg, Her Majesty is inclined to recall him, if there be not a better understanding between them, that the service may not suffer; and we hope that King will show his resentment against some of his officers who have been to blame, which he is now sensible of, and promises to do all things that may be for the benefit of the common cause.” And on the 30th, Sir Charles states:— “Upon the representation of the King of Portugal and the consideration of the misfortunes of the army there, Her Majesty has thought fit to recall Duke Schomberg.” Contemporary journals, however, state with great probability, that before those dates he wrote home and requested to be recalled, and his request was granted.
There were some who criticised his retirement rather severely. Burnet says:— “The Duke of Schomberg was a better officer in the field than in the cabinet; he did not know enough how to prepare for a campaign; he was both too inactive and too haughty.”[4] Other writers do not blame him. One writes:— “The enemy’s successes gave no small uneasiness in England, and the Duke of Schomberg, finding his advice had not that weight it deserved with the Portuguese, was desirous to quit a losing game.” So another:— “Duke Schomberg being sick of his command in Portugal, where he found neither horses for mounting the confederate cavalry, nor anything else they had engaged to provide in order to enable the allies to enter upon action, and the Portuguese generals insisting on the command of the English and the Dutch, as well as their own troops, he desired to be recalled.” Marlborough wrote to him from the Camp of Weissenberg, 29th Sept. 1704:— “I must pray leave to assure you none can be more sensibly concerned than I am at the misrepresentations that have been made of your Grace from the Court of Portugal, whose slowness and ill-conduct hitherto do sufficiently justify the complaints you were obliged to make. I shall long to kiss your Grace’s hands in London.”
The Duke might well be discontented with the Portuguese, but why with the English Government? His experience convinced the latter that a general bigotted to precedents, etiquette, and routine, was not the man for the anxious emergency. Accordingly, the Earl of Portmore, Schomberg’s second in command, was allowed to come home too; and a different style of general was sent to Portugal, a man of diplomacy combined with military spirit, patience, and self-denial, Henri De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway. Lord Portmore considered it was a breach of faith to pass him over. Thus, both in the army and in general society a malcontent party was formed, to which Schomberg’s sullenness gave too much encouragement. One reason for his discontent appears in the Treasury Papers, which contain a memorial from the Duke of Schomberg to the Lord High Treasurer, asking for “his arrears due to him in the last war, during which time he was Commander-in-Chief of the forces of England. He was obliged to be the more pressing, by reason of the great expense he had been at for Her Majesty’s service in the expedition to Portugal.” To which there is added this official note, “There is no fond provided by Parlt. for this. See the former answers."
The occasions in which he is reported to have voted in the House of Lords were all connected with ecclesiastical subjects. In 1703 a Bill against Occasional Conformity was brought in (but did not pass), intended to exclude Dissenters from all Government employments. It was thought that Schomberg would have opposed such a bill. He allowed his proxy to be used in its favour, probably out of deference to his generalissimo, Prince George, who had a seat in the House of Lords, and who, although himself a Lutheran, and only an occasional conformist, found that circumstances compelled him to support the bill.
In 1710, he voted that the clerical Jacobite incendiary, Dr. Sacheverell, was “guilty” of misdemeanour, on account of two discourses preached, not in his ordinary ministrations, but on public occasions, in which, among other things, he virulently maintained, 1st, That the necessary means used to bring about the Revolution of 1688 were odious and unjustifiable; and 2ndly, That the toleration granted by law is unreasonable and unwarrantable — that he is a false brother with regard to God, religion, and the Church, who defends toleration and liberty of conscience, and that it is the duty of superior pastors to thunder out their ecclesiastical anathemas against persons entitled to the benefit of the said Toleration.
In 1714 he protested against the Schism Bill, whose object was to suppress Dissenting Schools and Academies, on the ground that the children of churchmen attended them in alarming numbers. The bill passed the Lords by the slender majority of 77 to 72. The Protest proceeds upon the fact, that “it is not pretended that this Bill is designed as a punishment of any crime which the Protestant Dissenters have been guilty of against the civil government, or that they are disaffected to the Protestant succession as by law established, for in this their zeal is very conspicuous.” “If, nevertheless, the Dissenters were dangerous, severity is not so proper and effectual a method to reduce them to the Church, as a charitable indulgence, as is manifest by experience, there having been more Dissenters reconciled to the Church since the Act of Toleration, than in all the time from the Act of Uniformity to the time of the said Act of Toleration; and there is scarce one considerable family in England in communion with the Dissenters. Severity may make men hypocrites but not converts.” “In all the instances of making laws, or of a rigid execution of the laws, against Dissenters, the design was to weaken the Church, and to drive the Dissenters into one common interest with the Papists. We cannot think that the arts and contrivances of Papists to subvert our church are proper means to preserve it, especially at a time when we are more in danger of Popery than ever by the designs of the Pretender, supported by the mighty power of the French king, and by great numbers in this kingdom who are professedly in his interest.”
It was in January 1711 that the new ministry obtained the unjust censure of Lords Galway and Tyrawley, and of General Stanhope. There was a great displacement of military governors and colonels of regiments, as was usual on a change of ministry. Schomberg was excepted, it being known that he would not help his brother generals, but would stay at home. Feeling uneasy under the new regime, he obtained leave to retire in favour of his son Charles, Marquis of Harwich, who was thus gazetted as Colonel of the 4th Horse, when he was only twenty-seven years of age.
The Duke may now be regarded as a neutral in politics. On 18th June 1710 Lady Caroline, his daughter, died of small-pox, aged twenty-three. In 1711 he was a pall-bearer at the Earl of Rochester’s funeral, and in 1712 at Earl Godolphin’s. The 4th Horse was quartered in Dublin, and there the Marquis of Harwich died, 5th October 1713. The Duke was in his seventy-second year when this severe blow fell upon him. Except in his signature to the Protest already described, he does not again appear in public proceedings, though in the next reign he had to apply for a Private Act of Parliament regarding the destination of his hereditary pension.
If an English landed estate had been actually bestowed upon Marshal Schomberg, then on the death of Duke Mainhardt’s only son, the heir-apparent would have been the Duke’s eldest daughter. But the phraseology of the Patent for the Annuity was such, that the Duke was haunted by alarming visions of a male heir from Germany. In these circumstances, and when Queen Anne was dead, he seems to have renounced his claim upon her Majesty’s grant of £5,000 a year, which at once relieved the revenue of £1,000 annually. Besides, affection for the memory of William of Orange having revived at the accession of George I., reminiscences of regard from the more than Semi-Jacobite Queen Anne could do nothing but harm to a public man; while any proof of reciprocal attachment between King William and him was a testimonial ensuring honour and favour. Accordingly, Schomberg called the attention of the new government to the grant of King William to his father and to his English heirs, and how the affectionate and grateful intentions of the illustrious monarch were in danger of miscarrying, owing to unintentional inaccuracy in writing. A bill was therefore introduced into Parliament to enable King George to revoke the Letters Patent of William III., and to substitute a new grant by which a female heir might inherit; this Bill received the Royal assent, and is the Act of the first year of George I., No. 78.
The troublous year 1715 kept the Government busy with more public and pressing affairs; but after the re-establishment of tranquillity the Grant was drawn up and was enrolled on the 29th June 1716 (2d Geo. I.). It professes to proceed upon “an Act lately passed in our Parliament entitled, An Act to enable His Majesty to grant letters-patent to supply the defect in the Grant made by His Majesty King William the Third, unto Maynhard, Duke of Schonburg and Leinster, of the annual sum of £4,000 out of the Revenues of the Post Office until the sum of £100,000 be paid.” After reciting the services which the old Patent acknowledged, the new Patent adds what follows:— “Whereas the said Grant of the said £4,000 per annum for the Interest of the said £100,000 being limited and restrained to the said now Duke, and the heirs male of his body only, contrary to the said late Majesty’s intentions expressed in the said letters-patent, which was that the Interest of the said £100,000 should be continued to be paid until the said principal sum should be paid for the benefit of the persons who would have been entitled to the lands to have been purchased with the said principal sum according to the limitations aforesaid,— for supplying which defect it is by the said Act enacted that it should and might be lawful for us by letters-patent under the great seal of Great Britain to give and grant for us, our heirs and successors, unto the said Maynhard, Duke of Schonburg and Leinster, and the heirs male of his body, and for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said Maynhard, Duke of Schonburg and Leinster, and in default of such issue to the right heirs of the said Maynhard, Duke of Schonburg and Leinster, until the said sum of £100,000 should be paid as aforesaid, one annuity or yearly payment of £4000 of lawful money of Great Britain, &c, &c, &c, &c.”[5]
The Duke continued to live at his country house, Hillingthon, near London, till 1719, where he died suddenly on Sunday, July 5th, aged seventy-eight. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. The Annals of King George say, “On Tuesday night (Aug. 4), his Grace the Duke of Schonberg lay in state in the Jerusalem Chamber in the greatest magnificence, and from thence was carried with all his trophies of honour and interred in the Duke of Ormond’s vault in King Henry’s the Seventh’s Chapel. The funeral service was performed by the Bishop of Rochester, his pall supported by his Grace the Duke of Kent, Duke of Roxburgh, Earl of Pembroke, Earl of Portmore, Lord Abergeveny, and Lord Howard of Effingham; the Earl of Holderness and Count Dagenfeldt were the chief mourners.”
Two daughters survived him. Lady Mary married Nicholas, Count de Degenfeldt, of the German Empire, who was naturalized in England on the 13th January 1720 (6th Geo. I.). [The title sometimes appears in print as Degenfeld and as Dagenfeldt.]
The elder daughter, Lady Frederica, lived till 1751; she was twice married; and from her the British representatives of the old Schombergs descend. Her first husband was Robert, third Earl of Holdernesse, who died in 1722; and her second husband was Benjamin Mildmay, Earl Fitzwalter; to the latter she had an only child, Robert Schomberg, who died in infancy. Her children to her first husband were —
1st. Meinhard Frederick, who died young.
2d. Robert, fourth Earl of Holdernesse.
3d. Caroline.
The last Earl of Holdernesse dying in 1778, left a daughter, Lady Amelia Conyers D’Arcy, who inherited from him the Barony of Conyers, which she transmitted to her son, George William Frederick, Duke of Leeds.
Caroline, daughter of the third Earl of Holdernesse, by Countess Frederica, married William Henry, Earl of Ancrum, afterwards fourth Marquis of Lothian, whose lineal descendant is Schomberg, Marquis of Lothian.
- ↑ Dumont de Bostaquet phonographically styles the Dukedom “L’Instre” and “L’Inster.” — (See the printed copy of his MS. Memoirs, pp. 316, 317.)
- ↑ “She was born 12th Nov. 1659.” — Col. Chester.
- ↑ Cole’s State Papers.
- ↑ In the “Characters of the Court of Great Britain,” drawn up for the Electress Sophia by John Mackay, Esq. (attributed to Bishop Burnet), it is said, “When the present Queen concluded her treaty with Portugal, the Duke was chosen to command the forces there, and had the Garter; but not knowing how to keep measures with the Kings of Spain and Portugal, was recalled. He is one of the hottest fiery men in England, which was the reason King William would never give him any command where there was action. He is brave but capricious, of fair complexion, &c.”
- ↑ As to the subsequent history of the pension, the Gentleman’s Magazine notes the death, on the 7th August 1751, of the Countess of Fitzwalter (formerly Dowager Countess of Holdernesse), eldest daughter of the late Duke of Schomberg, and adds that the £4000 a-year out of the Post Office settled on her father and his heirs comes to the Earl of Holdernesse. But I must inform my readers that after deducting land tax, exchequer fees, &c, the pension was only £2900. By private sale several individuals have shared the pension with the heir. One-fourth lately belonged to C. Eyre, Esq., and in March 1856 the Government redeemed his share by a payment of £19,399, 8s. It was announced that the other recipients’ shares might be bought up on the same terms, namely, reckoning each annual £1000 as about £720, being the nett payment after the above-mentioned deductions. The other recipients at that date were (according to the House of Commons’ printed papers for 1856, No. 250), the Duke of Leeds, £1080; P. Powys, £360; R. Gosling, £360; Colonel Macleod, £288; Henra: Macleod, £72. An Act of Parliament of 21st July 1856 transferred Hereditary Pensions to the Consolidated Fund; in Schedule A this entry occurs:— “The Three Fourth Parts of an Annuity granted by King George the First to Maynhard, Duke of Schomberg, and his heirs, and charged upon the Post Office Revenue, the net annual amount payable in respect of which three-fourth parts is £2160.” On 7th August 1876 the House of Commons voted the sum of £29,109 to buy up the Duke of Leeds’ share; and the Daily Telegraph attempted a memoir of the Schombergs in a leading article, almost every word of which was wrong.