offence to the king by marrying Petronilla Melusina von der Schulenburg, the natural daughter of George I by his ' Maypole' mistress, Countess Ehrengard Melusina von der Schulenburg, duchess of Kendal [q. v.] Born in 1693, Chesterfield's bride, who was forty years old and his senior by a year, had been created Countess of Walsingham in her own right in 1722. Walpole says she had been secretly married in youth; but when Chesterfield made her acquaintance she was living with her mother, the Duchess of Kendal, in Grosvenor Square, in the house adjoining his own. In a pecuniary sense the match was desirable. The lady's portion was said to be a sum of 50,000l., with 3,000l. per annum payable out of the civil list revenue in Ireland during her life (Hist. Reg.) At the same time her expectations from her mother were great. The marriage was in fact solely a political and financial arrangement. For many years after the ceremony husband and wife continued to reside next door to each other. Chesterfield seems to have celebrated the union by taking into his keeping a new mistress, Lady Frances or Fanny Shirley (1702-1778), 'a great beauty,' with whom he long maintained relations. To her he addressed much sportive verse. His friend Pope wrote poems to her, and Sir Charles Hanbury-Williams commemorated her relations with Chesterfield in his poem 'Isabella' (cf. Pope, Works, ed. Courthope and Elwin, iv. 462). At the same time he frequently visited his wife at the house of her mother, and 'played away all his credit' there. In December 1737 he and the countess visited Bath together. According to Horace Walpole, the countess made him 'a most exemplary wife, and he rewarded her very ungratefully.' His neglect of her was obvious and indefensible, but she does not appear to have resented it. All she expected from him was an outward show of respect, and his considerate references to her in his correspondence indicate that he did not disappoint her in that regard (Ernst, pp. 80-82). He lost no opportunity of protecting their joint pecuniary interests. When the duchess, his mother-in-law, died on 10 May 1743, George II is said to have destroyed her will to prevent Lady Chesterfield from benefiting by the dispositions of the late king in his mistress's favour (cf. Walpole, Correspondence, ed. Cunningham, vii. 141). It was believed that 40,000l. had been bequeathed to the duchess by George I, and had never been paid her. Chesterfield insisted that that sum should now be made over to his wife. Resistance was threatened, and an action was begun against the crown under Chesterfield's direction; but finally Chesterfield agreed to stay proceedings on receiving payment of 20,000l.
Elsewhere Chesterfield gave the king and Walpole as little quarter. Through the session of 1734 he supported the bill protecting military officers from deprivation of their commissions otherwise than by a court-martial or an address from both houses of parliament (13 Feb.) On 28 March he vigorously denounced a message from the king which requested parliament to give him authority to augment the naval and military forces during the parliamentary recess. In society and in the journals he made his foes (even the king and queen) feel the full force of his satiric faculty, and Walpole involuntarily offered him during the session of 1737 a singularly apt opportunity for its display. In view of the frequency of attacks in the theatres on the government, Walpole introduced a bill compelling theatrical managers to submit all plays for license to the lord chamberlain fourteen days before they were to be represented on the stage (10 Geo. II, cap. 28). When the bill was introduced into the lords, Chesterfield riddled its claim to justice or common-sense. He argued that ridicule was the natural prerogative of the theatre, and that the bill was an encroachment not merely upon liberty, but upon property, 'wit being the property of those who have it.' The speech was fully reported in 'Parliamentary History' (x. 319 sq.); an abstract appeared in 'Common Sense' (4 June 1737), and it was published as a pamphlet in 1749. Although the bill became law, Chesterfield's speech excited even the admiration of antagonists. Hervey describes it as one of the most lively and ingenious speeches that he ever heard in parliament, 'full of wit of the genteelest satire, and in the most polished classical style that the Petronius of any time ever wrote. It was extremely studied, seemingly easy, well delivered, and universally admired.' Chesterfield's unqualified assertion of the right of literary satire to immunity from police regulations roused grateful enthusiasm in the republic of letters. Pope gracefully complimented him in the 'Dunciad' (bk. 4, v. 43-4). Smollett wrote: 'The speech will ever endear his character to all the friends of genius and literature to all those who are warmed with zeal for the liberties of their country.'
The death, on 20 Nov. 1737, of Queen Caroline, on whom Chesterfield penned a vindictive epitaph, removed a serious obstacle to his political advancement. It weakened Walpole's influence at court, and the mini-
