Northumberland was yesterday created Duke of Northumberland, Earl Percy, and Viscount Louvaine, the last of which Mr. Conway had the address to persuade [sic] him from adding as a second dukedom, as he before had that of getting him to change the title he first had asked, of Duke Brabant.’ The title of Viscount Lovaine of Alnwick was not actually conferred till 28 Jan. 1784 (Grenville Papers, iv. 208–9; Chatham Corresp. iii. 74–6 n.).
Although in 1767 Horace Walpole wrote that Northumberland was thought likely to be the head of a ministry to be formed of the ‘king's friends,’ Northumberland never completely identified himself with that faction. He voted against the Stamp Act, and for its repeal, and in 1770 supported Chatham's resolution condemning Lord North's advice to the king not to receive the ‘remonstrance and petition’ of the corporation of London on the subject of the Middlesex election. But, as lord lieutenant of Middlesex, he used all his influence against Wilkes and his friends, and incurred a full measure of popular animosity. His eldest son, Hugh, who had sat in parliament for Westminster since 1764, was opposed at the general election in 1768 by a nominee of Wilkes (Walpole, Letters, 2nd ser. i. 294). During the riots of 1768, caused by the mob's sympathy with Wilkes, Northumberland was compelled by the populace to publicly drink Wilkes's health at Northumberland House, and he was threatened with a prosecution for murder in consequence of two men having been killed in an election riot at Brentford (ib. 20 Dec. 1768). In 1778 he was appointed by Lord North master of the horse. Walpole ridiculed the appointment because Northumberland had the stone and was very lame with gout. His friendship for Lord North's government was doubted: ‘within a few weeks of his promotion he had openly talked opposition in all companies’ (Walpole, Last Journals, ii. 306). He resigned in 1780. During the Gordon riots he experienced further proofs of the hostility of the mob. He was forced from his carriage and robbed of his watch and purse on the cry being raised that a gentleman in black who rode with him was his jesuit confessor (Lord Mahon, Hist. of England, vii. 28).
Northumberland interested himself in art, science, and literature. He was elected F.R.S. in 1736, and in 1764 stood unsuccessfully for the presidency against Lord Morton. In 1753 he became a trustee of the British Museum. Alnwick Castle the duke thoroughly repaired and renovated in pseudo-Gothic style. Johnson visited it when on his way to Scotland, and, being treated with great civility by the duke (BOSWELL, ed. Hill, iii. 272), remarked, ‘He is only fit to succeed himself’ (ib. ii. 132). On 5 July 1764 the duke is said to have celebrated the king's birthday by entertaining fifteen hundred guests. Northumberland House, in London, was enlarged, and Sir Horace Mann [q. v.] was commissioned to buy pictures for its adornment. Walpole thought the gallery ‘might have been in better taste’ (see letters to Sir H. Mann, Corresp. ii. 479, iii. 75). Bishop Percy said that Syon House had been formed into a villa which, for taste and elegance, is scarce to be paralleled in Europe (Aungier, Hist. of Syon Monastery, p. 125). The duke formed a fast friendship with Bishop Percy, and through the bishop he came to know Oliver Goldsmith, to whom he showed much courtesy. In the management of his large property he showed much business capacity. Between 1749 and 1778 the rent-roll of the Northumberland estates rose from 8,607l. to 50,000l. The country was planted, drained, and reclaimed, and the labourers' houses were improved. The result was largely due to the development of the mines.
The duke died on 6 June 1786 at Syon House, and was buried with great pomp in his family vault in St. Nicholas's Chapel, Westminster Abbey.
He was the handsomest man of his day. Walpole grudgingly admitted his advantageous figure and courtesy of address, but declared that ‘with the mechanic application to every branch of knowledge, he possessed none beyond the surface;’ and that ‘the old nobility beheld his pride with envy and anger, and thence were the less disposed to overlook the littleness of his temper.’ Walpole also charged him with ‘sordid and illiberal conduct at play,’ a failing which is glanced at in ‘A Tale’ published with ‘The Rolliad,’ where the Duke divides a small unclaimed sum with the waiter at Brooks's; but Walpole concluded that, ‘in an age so destitute of intrinsic merit, his foibles ought to have passed almost for virtues’ (Memoirs of George III, i. 418–20; cf. Last Journals, ed. Doran, ii. 306). Dutens, who knew more of the duke than Walpole, and was an equally good judge of character, said that ‘he had great talents and more knowledge than is generally found amongst the nobility;’ but adds that, ‘although his expenditure was unexampled in his time, he was not generous, but passed for being so owing to his judicious manner of bestowing favours’ (Memoirs of a Traveller, ii. 96–8).
The duchess, long a conspicuous figure in
