Lord Mahon,[16] in speaking of Caroline, says that ‘her character was without a blemish.’ Compared with many around her, perhaps it was; but if the face had not spots it had ‘patches,’ which looked very much like them. On this matter, the noble lord appears to admit that some doubt may exist, and he subsequently adds: ‘But no doubt can exist as to her discerning and most praiseworthy patronage of worth and learning in the Church. The most able and pious men were everywhere sought and preferred, and the episcopal bench was graced by such men as Hare, Sherlock, and Butler.’ Of course, Queen Caroline’s dislike of Hoadly may be set down as founded upon that prelate’s alleged want of orthodoxy. It has been noticed in another page, that, according to Walpole, the Queen had rather weakened than enlightened her faith by her study of divinity, and that her Majesty herself ‘was at best not orthodox.’ Her countenance of the ‘less-believing’ clergy is said, upon the same authority, to have been the effect of the influence of Lady Sundon, who ‘espoused the heterodox clergy.’ Lord Mahon also says that the Queen was distinguished for charity towards those whom she accounted her enemies. She could nurse her rage, however, a good while to keep it warm. Witness her feeling manifested against that daughter of Lord Portland who married Mr. Godolphin. Her hatred of this lady was irreconcileable, nor was the King’s of a more Christian quality. That lady’s sole offence, however, was her acceptance of the office ‘of governess to their daughter in the late reign, without their consent, at the time they had been turned out of St. James’s, and the education of their children, who were kept there, taken from them.’[17] For this offence the King and Queen were very unwilling to confer a peerage and pension on Godolphin in 1735, when he resigned his office of groom of the stole in the royal household. The peerage and pension were, nevertheless, ultimately conferred at the earnest solicitation of Walpole, and with great ill-humour on the part of the King. Even Walpole, with all his power and influence, was not at this time so powerful and influential but that when he was crossed in parliament he suffered for it at court. Thus, when the Crown lost several supporters in the house by adverse decisions on election petitions, the King was annoyed, and the Queen gave expression to her own anger on the occasion. It was rare indeed that she ever spoke her dissatisfaction of Sir Robert; but on the occasion in question she is reported as having said that Sir Robert Walpole either neglected these things, and judged it enough to think they were trifles, though in government, and especially in this country, nothing was a trifle, ‘or, perhaps,’ she said, ‘there is some mismanagement I know nothing of, or some circumstances we are none of us acquainted with; but, whatever it is, to me these things seem very ill-conducted.’[18]