Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third, Volume 3 (of 4)

by Horace Walpole

FOOTNOTES

[1] The pamphlet alluded to was intituled “A Letter to his Grace the Duke of Grafton, First Commissioner of his Majesty’s Treasury.” Editions were printed at London, Paris, and Berlin. It bears with less severity on the Duke than on Lord Chatham, who is held up to public ridicule and scorn as an apostate to the cause of liberty, and “the abject crouching deputy of the proud Scot,” whom he is represented as having previously persecuted and insulted. This virulent and tedious invective concludes thus:—“But I have done with Lord Chatham; I leave him to the poor consolation of a place, a pension, and a peerage, for which he has sold the confidence of a great nation. Pity shall find and weep over him.” It is altogether a poor performance. The only part now of any interest, is the narrative it contains of Wilkes’s arrest and examination for the publication of the North Briton, in 1763.—(Almon’s Life of Wilkes, vol. iii. p. 184.—Biographical Anecdotes, vol. i. p. 6.)—E.

[2] Walpole must have meant weeks. The Pope declined receiving them on account of the expenses attending the support of so large a body. Subsequently the miserable pittance of a franc per diem was assigned to each of them.—E.

[3] M de Mello afterwards became Minister of Marine in Portugal, under the Marquis of Pombal, and held that post several years with great reputation. His ability and experience in business, obliged the Court to retain him in the Government after the disgrace of Pombal, notwithstanding his connexions with that statesman, and the known liberality of his opinions.—(Dispatch from Mr. Walpole, minister at Lisbon, in Smith’s Life of Pombal, vol. ii. p. 301.)—E.

[4] The exchange to which Walpole refers was not accomplished without serious difficulty, the Indian Militia raised by the Jesuits having long successfully resisted the Spanish and Portuguese forces employed to carry the treaty into effect. The transaction has generally been ascribed to the intrigues of the Dominicans, the ancient enemies of the Jesuits, and their competitors for spiritual dominion in the New World. The conspiracy of Tavora quickly followed, and furnished Pombal with the ostensible pretext he so ardently desired, for the expulsion of the order from Portugal (in 1759), and it also shook their influence throughout Europe. They lingered on in France, proscribed by the Parliaments, and odious to the great majority of the people, until 1764, when the edict against them was wrung from Louis XV. by the importunities of Choiseul. The same minister has been supposed to have determined the Court of Spain to pursue a similar course; and no doubt his influence and that of his master were used for that purpose. But the real author of the bold and statesmanlike measure described in the text, was Don Pedro D’Aranda, the Captain-General, and President of the Council of Castile. During a lengthened absence from Spain, he had formed in the society of Montesquieu, D’Alembert, and Diderot, as well as of Frederic the Great, plans of national reform, which he knew to be incompatible with the existence of the Jesuits; and from the moment of his accession to power he seems to have been bent on their destruction. His manly and persuasive eloquence, a mind full of resources, and a character indomitably resolute, gained him an extraordinary sway over the divided councils of an ignorant and imbecile Court. The Jesuits had irritated Charles by their intrigues, both at Rome and Madrid, during the reign of his predecessor. Their interference with the various departments of the State had gradually identified them, in the opinion of the people, with the grievous abuses under which the country suffered, and all the rising talent of Spain was secretly opposed to them. D’Aranda boldly arraigned them as the instigators of the insurrection against Squillaci, which, for some hours, had placed the royal family and the capital at the mercy of the mob. He availed himself of the influence he had acquired by quelling that insurrection to press the charge with his characteristic impetuosity. The alarm of the King, and the confidence of the accuser, supplied the deficiency of conclusive proofs, and D’Aranda prevailed.

No sooner was the edict obtained, than it appeared that the most minute arrangements had been made throughout Spain for its immediate execution by Campomanes, then a young man, and lately appointed to the ministry; and the skill with which this was accomplished is still cited by the native historians as the masterpiece of that statesman, high as his reputation deservedly stands in his own country as an economist, a writer, and a minister. See the Supplementary Chapter by Muriel to the French translation of Coxe’s History of the Spanish Bourbons, vol. v. p. 65; one of the most valuable of that work.—E.

[5] Sebastian Joseph de Carvalho a Mello Count D’Ocyras, and Marquis of Pombal, was born in 1699, and died in 1782, in his 83rd year. He had been Minister and master of Portugal for twenty-seven years—a period rendered interesting by his vigorous efforts for the regeneration of his country. This was an undertaking, however, beyond the power of any individual, however eminent or able, to accomplish; and the harsh and often unprincipled means he employed to attain his ends made his reforms odious to a large portion of the community, and precipitated their decline from the moment that he had fallen into disgrace.—E.

[6] Jane Warburton, widow of John Duke of Argyle, and mother of Caroline Countess Dowager of Dalkeith, who had married for her second husband Charles Townshend, and inherited a great fortune on her mother’s death.

[7] See Lord Bristol’s letter to Lord Chatham of the 5th of April, conveying the King’s kind message and the King’s own letter to Lord Chatham of the 30th of April, to the same effect.—Chat. Corresp. vol. iii. pp. 240. 252. His Majesty appears to have acted most considerately and handsomely towards Lord Chatham throughout his illness.—E.

[8] Henry Crabb Boulton, M.P. for Worcester, died in 1773. He was chairman of the East India Company, in the same year. He also presided over the Committee appointed by the General Court of Proprietors to oppose Lord North’s Bill for the better regulation of the Company, and exerted himself most actively to defeat that measure. It was at his instigation that the Corporation of the City of London, moved by the important consideration that 1000 freemen were interested in the question, made common cause with the Company, and petitioned Parliament on its behalf.—E.

[9] Mr. Townshend had not many months before entertained a very different opinion of this great man, as appears from the following passage in the Duke of Grafton’s MS. Memoirs. “On the night preceding Lord Chatham’s first journey to Bath, Mr. Charles Townshend was for the first time summoned to the Cabinet. The business was on a general view and statement of the actual situation and interests of the various powers in Europe. Lord Chatham had taken the lead in this consideration in so masterly a manner, as to raise the admiration and desire of us all to co-operate with him in forwarding his views. Mr. Townshend was particularly astonished, and owned to me, as I was carrying him in my carriage home, that Lord Chatham had just shown to us what inferior animals we were, and that as much as he had seen of him before, he did not conceive till that night his superiority to be so very transcendent.”—E.

[10] The following more friendly account of this singular scene is transcribed from Sir George Colebrooke’s Memoirs.

“Mr. Townshend loved good living, but had not a strong stomach. He committed therefore frequent excesses, considering his constitution, which would not have been intemperance in another. He was supposed, for instance, to have made a speech in the heat of wine, when that was really not the case. It was a speech in which he treated with great levity, but with wonderful art, the characters of the Duke of Grafton and Lord Shelburne, whom, though his colleagues in office, he entertained a sovereign contempt for, and heartily wished to get rid of. He had a black ribbon over one of his eyes that day, having tumbled out of bed, probably in a fit of epilepsy, and this added to the impression made on his auditors that he was tipsy, whereas it was a speech he had meditated a great while upon, and it was only by accident that it found utterance that day. I write with certainty, because Sir George Yonge and I were the only persons who dined with him, and we had but one bottle of champagne after dinner, General Conway having repeatedly sent messengers to press his return to the House.”—E.

[11] Francis Bernard, Esq. He had been Governor of New Jersey from 1758 to 1760 when he was promoted to Massachusets. He is praised by the writers unfavourable to the Americans for his zeal in maintaining the authority of the mother country.—(Stedman’s History of the American War, vol. i. p. 58.) Unhappily this zeal was not tempered by judgment. He has been justly censured by Mr. Burke. He was made a Baronet in 1769, died in 1779. The late benevolent Sir John Bernard was his second son.—E.

[12] This speech will long be memorable, as it again opened the wounds scarce skinned over by the repeal of the Stamp Act. The loss of the land-tax occasioned this speech and the ensuing taxes; those taxes produced opposition; that opposition gave a handle to the friends of prerogative to attempt despotism in America; and that attempt has caused a civil war in America, whence is just arrived notice of the first bloodshed, as I transcribe these Memoirs—in June, 1775.

At this later period (when thirteen provinces are actually lost) the leading steps may be summed up thus: Grenville (who had adopted from Lord Bute a plan of taxation formed by Jenkinson) had provoked America to resist. The Rockingham Administration had endeavoured to remedy that mischief by repealing the Stamp Act; and perhaps might have prevented a farther breach, though ambitious leaders, and perhaps some true republican patriots, might have entertained hopes of separating the Colonies from Great Britain; and France had certainly fomented those designs. The pernicious mischief of lowering the land-tax gave a handle to Charles Townshend to propose his new taxes (instigated, as was supposed, by the secret cabal at Court, or officiously to make his court there.) Thus the ambition of the Court began the quarrel; Grenville was a second time, though then without foreseeing it, an instrument of renewing it; and the Crown, that delighted in the mischief, ended with being the great sufferer, and America happily became perfectly free.—W.

[It is not unlikely, as Sir George Colebrooke observes, “that as the Court had never intended to abandon the principle of taxation. Mr. Townshend was not sorry to have an opportunity of ingratiating himself at St. James’s, by proposing taxes which, though levied in America, were not laid on American growth, or American industry, and so far he hoped they would find admittance into the Colonies.”—(Sir George Colebrooke’s MS. Memoirs.) Many of the Americans attached to the British connexion were also of that opinion, and told Mr. Townshend “Only let the tax bear the appearance of port duties, and it will not be objected to.”—(Cavendish’s Debates, vol. i. p. 213.) At home the measure was opposed by a very slender minority in Parliament representing no powerful interests exclusive of the merchants engaged in the American trade, whose fears for the debts owing to them in the Colonies made them so tremblingly apprehensive, that their remonstrances carried less weight with the Government than would otherwise have been due to their intelligence and wealth. The country also had taken umbrage at the intemperate language of the Colonists, and regarded with some distrust the moderate policy of the Government; so that Mr. Townshend had to contend with the taunts of the Opposition, the popular voice, and the wishes of the Court—a combination far too strong for a statesman of his temperament to resist.]—E.

[13] The third resolution was, “That until provision shall have been made by the Assembly for furnishing the King’s troops with all the necessaries required by the said Act (of 5 Geo. III.) the Government, and Council, and Assembly be restrained and prohibited from passing or assenting to any act of Assembly, &c.” It was opposed at considerable length by Mr. Pownall, late Governor of Massachusets, on the ground that the provisions of the Act were incompatible with the nature of the people and the circumstances of many parts of the country, and that its object might be effectually obtained by a colonial act, such as the Assembly of Massachusets had passed at his recommendation some time before. Governor Pownall’s speech is reported, probably by himself, in Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. p. 331.—E.

[14] The previous discussions of the East India question are noticed in the Second Volume pp. 394, 427, 449. They convey no exalted notion of the sagacity or virtue of the parties concerned in them. The sole object of the Ministers appears to have been to extort the largest possible sum of money from the Company, without regard to the prosperity of our commercial relations with India, the proper administration of the territories of the Company, or the welfare of the Indian population. The Company in like manner, directors and proprietors, displayed an utter unfitness for the discharge of the vast jurisdiction to which they laid claim. The venality and rapacity of their officers in India almost found a parallel in the disgraceful trafficking for votes and patronage in the Court of Proprietors, and the speculations and maladministration of the directors. Their affairs had fallen into great disorder,—the natural result of these practices on such a vicious system as the annual election of the directors and the low amount of the franchise of the proprietors. It was no wonder that all sought to escape any interference or control on the part of the Government. Strange to say, these crying evils were regarded with indifference by the public, and every effort made by Government to repress them met with determined resistance from the great mercantile interests of the City of London. Indeed the cause of the Company became so popular that many of the leading Whigs very inconsistently yielded to the general feeling, and were found among its warmest advocates. Conway wanted firmness to oppose this delusion. Of all the Ministers, Lord Chatham alone did not entirely forget that he was a statesman. He protested throughout against the rights claimed by the Company over the conquered provinces, and he did not disguise his contempt for that body. Indistinctly as his views are expressed, and extravagant as may have been his belief of the extent of the revenues of the Company, he appears to have carried his views for their appropriation beyond those of mere revenue considerations to this country, and if his health had admitted of his entering further into the controversy, and he had been assisted in matters of detail, it is not unlikely that he would have struck out a scheme worthy of his genius for the government of this vast empire.—E.

[15] William Fitzherbert, of Tissington, M. P. for Derby, and a Lord of Trade, an amiable man, whose intimate friendship with Burke, Johnson, Cumberland, and other eminent literary men of his day, has been gratefully recorded in their works. Dr. Johnson’s exquisite description of him has often been quoted. He committed suicide in a fit of phrenzy, in 1772. The late Lord St. Helens was his son.—E.

[16] Thomas Nuthall, appointed Solicitor of the Treasury, through Lord Chatham’s interest, and his lordship’s intimate friend and law adviser. Many letters to and from him are contained in the Chatham Correspondence. He was shot by a highwayman on Hounslow Heath, and expired a few hours afterwards, in March, 1775.—E.

[17] Mary, wife of Edward Duke of Norfolk, one of the daughters and co-heiresses of Edward Blount of Blagden, in Devonshire. The biographer of the Blount family states that “she graced her high station by the beauty and dignity of her person, and the splendour of her wit and talents.” She had lived with her husband in the South of France, until he succeeded to the dukedom on the death of his elder brother, without issue, in 1732. She died without issue in 1773. The Duke survived her and died at the advanced age of 92, in 1777.—(History of the Croke and Le Blount Family, vol. ii. p. 150.)—E.

[18] The debate was hot and personal. Lord Denbigh threw out indirect reflections on Chief Justice Wilmot, and on being stopped as disorderly, he turned upon Lord Mansfield, and went so far as to give his lordship the lie. Eventually he was obliged to ask pardon, which Lord Mansfield seems to have given with rather unbecoming alacrity.—(Duke of Bedford’s Journal, in Cav. Parl. Deb., vol. i. Appendix.) On the following day, the Duke of Grafton communicated the result of the division by letter to Lord Chatham, and earnestly entreated an interview to consider what was to be done. Lord Chatham, as before, begged “to be allowed to decline the honour of the visit, finding himself quite unable for a conversation which he should be otherwise proud and happy to embrace.”—(Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. pp. 255, 256.)—E.

[19] The Duke says in his MS. Memoirs—

“Though I expected to find Lord Chatham very ill indeed, his situation was different from what I had imagined: his nerves and spirits were affected to a dreadful degree, and the sight of his great mind, bowed down and thus weakened by disorder, would have filled me with grief and concern even if I had not long borne a sincere attachment to his person and character. The confidence he reposed in me, demanded every return on my part, and it appeared like cruelty in me to have been urged by any necessity to put a man I valued to so great suffering. The interview was long and painful: I had to run over the many difficulties of the session, for his lordship, I believe, had not once attended the House since his last return from Bath. I had to relate the struggles we had experienced in carrying some points, especially in the House of Lords; the opposition, also, we had encountered in the East India business, from Mr. Conway as well as Mr. Townshend, together with the unaccountable conduct of the latter gentleman, who had suffered himself to be led to pledge himself at last, contrary to the known decision of every member of the Cabinet, to draw a certain revenue from the Colonies, without offence to the Americans themselves; and I was sorry to inform Lord Chatham, that Mr. Townshend’s flippant boasting was received with strong marks of a blind and greedy approbation from the body of the House; and I endeavoured to lay everything before his lordship as plainly as I was able, and assured him that Lords Northington and Camden had both empowered me to declare how earnestly they desired to receive his advice as to assisting and strengthening the system he had established by some adequate accession, without which they were satisfied it could not nor ought to proceed.

“It was with difficulty that I brought Lord Chatham to be sensible of the weakness of his Administration, or the power of the united faction against us, though we received every mark we could desire of his Majesty’s support. At last, after much discourse and some arguing, he proceeded to entreat me to remain in my present station, taking that method to strengthen the Ministry which should appear to me to be the most eligible; and he assured me that if Lords Northington and Camden, as well as myself, did not retain our high places, there would be an end to all his hopes of being ever serviceable again as a public man.”

Eventually Lord Chatham acquiesced in the Duke entering into a negotiation with the Bedford or Rockingham party—though he preferred the former,—a preference which explains the Duke’s remark in the text of p. 49.—E.

[20] Conway was right—Prince Ferdinand realized very little property during the war, and died poor. The vast sums drawn from England fell into the hands of subordinate agents.—E.

[21] They were both descendants of Charles II.

[22] A brief report of the debate is given from Lord Hardwicke’s Notes in the “Parliamentary History,” vol. xvi. p. 350, by which it appears that Lord Mansfield’s opposition was most decided and effective. He treated it as an unprecedented exertion of absolute power to set aside a legal act of private men legally empowered to dispose of their own property—they having neither violated the general principles of justice nor the bye-laws of the Company; their circumstances being amply adequate to the payment of the dividend: and he also insisted that stock-jobbing would be promoted by the bill, and left no doubt of his own impression that such was its sole object. These arguments are reproduced with great ability in the Protest, and have never been satisfactorily refuted. The insolvency of the Company—a ground afterwards abandoned by the Government—seems to be the only legitimate defence that could have been alleged for such an arbitrary act.—E.

[23] Many, if not all of these, are to be found in the third volume of Lord Chatham’s Correspondence.—E.

[24] Lord Holland had long vented this maxim, though he himself and Lord Chatham had proved the futility of it in the last reign, when they had successfully attacked the Duke of Newcastle’s Administration, on his setting Sir Thomas Robinson to lead the House of Commons. Lord Bute at the same instigation had erected himself into Minister, with Sir Francis Dashwood for his substitute, and though it is true the nation bore it for one session, it was so ridiculous an Administration, that the Earl took fright, resigned himself, and deposed his deputy. The King not having courage to repeat the system, though he liked it, had recourse to an artful expedient, which answered his purpose—which was to set up an ostensible Minister, but govern by his secret junto. Lord Rockingham had really been Minister for one year, but found he could not gain the King’s confidence without submitting to the junto, and he was removed for Lord Chatham, another real Minister, whose madness or mad conduct left the King at liberty to revert to his own system, and then the Duke of Grafton and Lord North submitted to be ostensible Ministers.

[25] This was not exactly the purport of the message: see infra pp. 87, 88, note. The Duke of Bedford’s construction of it may be seen from the following passage in his Journal:—“Mr. Rigby informed us of the good temper of mind in which he found Mr. Grenville with regard to any Administration which could be formed to defeat the secret influence of Lord Bute, and whose measures should be pursued conformable to his sentiments about America, &c.”—(Duke of Bedford’s Journal, 11th of July.)—E.

[26] George Lord Townshend.

[27] Lady Caroline Campbell, wife of General Conway.

[28] Lady Caroline Campbell, wife of Charles Townshend. These two ladies were daughters of two Johns Dukes of Argyll, and were widows of the Earls of Ailesbury and Dalkeith.

[29] According to the Duke of Bedford’s Journal, this meeting originated with the Duke of Newcastle: it look place at Newcastle House on the 21st, at 9 o’clock in the evening. The two Dukes, the Marquis, and Messrs. Rigby and Dowdeswell were the only persons present. The point on which they finally disagreed was Mr. Conway’s continuing Secretary of State with the lead in the Commons. “This,” says the Duke, “necessarily put an end to any further possibility of going on, and we broke up with our declaring ourselves free from all engagements to one another, and to be as before this negotiation began.”—Cavendish’s Debates, vol. i. Appendix, p. 606.—E.

[30] At the beginning of the ensuing year, being in great danger, and recovering to some degree, he resolved to give over politics; he was then seventy-four. This determination he notified by letter to Princess Amelie, Lord Rockingham, and others; for he could not quit folly but in a foolish manner. He languished near ten months, and died November 17, 1768.

[31] Many of the letters that passed between the Opposition leaders during this negotiation are preserved among the Bedford MSS. They confirm substantially the narrative in the text. The Grenvilles appear from first to last to have been the real obstacles to any satisfactory arrangement. The Duke of Bedford would probably have been satisfied with such a share of power as would (to use his own words) “rescue the King and the country out of the hands of Lord Bute, and restore strength and energy to the Government upon a constitutional footing, free from favouritism and the guidance of a Minister not in a responsible employment.”—(MS. Letter to the Marquis of Rockingham, July 16.) He thought less of measures than of men, and his bold, sanguine turn of mind made him underrate the difficulties inseparable from a coalition. Mr. Grenville looked much further than the exclusion of Lord Bute. He concurred in the idea of an extended and comprehensive administration on the ostensible ground that such an administration was likeliest to be a permanent one, but his concurrence hinged on the condition “that a plan of measures should be adopted to the satisfaction of Lord Temple and himself, and particularly the capital measure of asserting and establishing the sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies,” which he insinuates had been purposely kept back by Lord Rockingham. This was the purport of the message brought from him by Mr. Rigby to Woburn.—(MS. Letter from Mr. Grenville to Mr. Rigby, July 16.) From the moment that his determination was made known, all hopes of union between the parties in Opposition were at an end.

The heartiness and warmth with which Lord Rockingham’s overtures were in the first instance received at Woburn, gave his disappointment additional bitterness. (Letter from Lord Albemarle to Mr. Rigby, July 23, Bedford MSS.) The unpleasant truth was thus also revealed to him, that his destiny was rather to correct and to advise than to administer the Government. Mr. Burke must have strangely deceived himself when he complimented the Marquis on his magnanimity in refusing office at the price of the abandonment of his friends. It was the union of the Bedford and Grenville parties that had broken up his administration and now alone prevented his reconstructing it, with the additional injury of almost destroying the Opposition. Indeed Lord Rockingham felt no little embarrassment how to give an ostensible explanation of his conduct, or to state the principles on which the Opposition ought to be conducted in future. (See his Letters to Mr. Dowdeswell.—Cavendish Debates, vol. i. Appendix 2, p. 583.) He had no feelings in common with his new allies beyond a distrust of the King, and hatred of Lord Bute. His political sympathies, and in some degree his personal friendships were with the Ministers. Thus he was brought into a false position, which made his course most difficult, and fully explains the following passage in one of his letters:—“You know I never disguised to my friends that I considered them as a forlorn hope, but that the maintenance of character and credit was in honour incumbent upon them, and would in the first place be a comfort to their own minds, and though it might appear improbable at present, yet it was not impossible that such conduct might ultimately prove the best policy.” The Duke of Richmond had strongly recommended the Marquis to come in without the Grenvilles and Bedfords (see the Duke’s Letter to Burke, in Burke, Coll. Corresp. vol. 1. p. 139): and it would seem that the party afterwards regretted that this advice had not been followed, though as long as the King continued unfavourable to them, it surely is more than doubtful that they would have succeeded better than in the preceding year.

Of the various accounts which have been published of these negotiations, Walpole’s is the most clear and impartial, as well as interesting. It is confirmed in all essential points both by Mr. Dowdeswell’s narrative in his life of his father, and the Duke of Bedford’s Private Journal,—authorities of equal authenticity, though proceeding from opposite political sources. Almon’s (Political Register, vol. i. pp. 201–208,) is justly condemned by Lord Rockingham as most unfair, and that nobleman is probably right in ascribing it to Lord Temple.—E.

[32] It appears from the Duke of Bedford’s Journal that he had a long interview with Lord Rockingham on the 23rd, in which the latter behaved very politely and cordially to him, and it was probably out of that interview that the Duke of Richmond’s communication originated. Lord Rockingham subsequently considered that nothing but the interference of the Grenvilles prevented the Duke’s concurrence with him in forming a Ministry. The Duke of Grafton seems to have been of the same opinion.—(Bedford MSS.)—E.

[33] It was after Mr. Pelham’s death, when he had joined the Duke of Newcastle, and was made Secretary of State. He came to me and told me he believed that he could procure for my own life the place I held during my brother’s, if I would be well with the Duke of Newcastle. I replied warmly and peremptorily, “Mr. Fox, do you think that, after laughing at the Duke of Newcastle all my life, I will stoop to accept a favour from him?”

[34] A distinct confirmation of Lord Bute’s statement may be found in the Memoirs of Mr. Dutens, the Secretary to Mr. Mackenzie. His Lordship assured that gentleman “that since the year 1766 he never interfered, directly or indirectly, with public affairs, nor had privately seen the King during that period. He continued to visit regularly the Princess of Wales; but when the King came to see his mother, he always retired by a back staircase.”—(Memoirs of a Traveller now in Retirement, vol. iv. p. 183.)—E.

[35] Lord Beauchamp and Lord Mountstewart, sons of the Earls of Hertford and Bute, had married the two daughters of the late Lord Windsor.

[36] Lord Chancellor Bowes; he was an Englishman who had practised at the Irish Bar, where he had successively filled the offices of Solicitor and Attorney General. He was afterwards Lord Chief Baron, and on the death of Lord Jocelyn obtained the Great Seal with an Irish Peerage. He died in 1767 without male issue. He is said to have been learned and eloquent, and to have presided in the House of Lords with great dignity. Some interesting letters from him to Mr. Dodington are printed in the Appendix to Adolphus’s History of George the Third.—E.

[37] This portrait has the broad lines of truth, and is more to be depended upon than Mr. Burke’s splendid and affectionate panegyric, (Speech on American Taxation;) and yet who can blame the warmth with which this great man claims admiration for a genius which in some points resembled his own? It is to be regretted that of the many eminent literary men who enjoyed Mr. Townshend’s intimacy, none should have left behind any memorial by which his wonderful qualities might be justly appreciated. In the absence of all biographical information, the following loose memoranda from Sir George Colebrooke’s Memoirs are not without value.

“The ambition of Mr. Townshend would not have been gratified but by being Minister; and doubtless, had he lived to see the Duke of Grafton resign, he must have had the offer which was made to Lord North, who succeeded him as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he never would have remained Premier as long as Lord North did. Though much his superior in eloquence and abilities, he wanted the nerve necessary to conduct business with steadiness; and instead of engaging in hostilities with America, he would have been the first to flinch from them, had he lived and been allowed to guide. So far, therefore, his death may be considered as a public loss. As a private man, his friends had used to say that they should not see his like again. Though they were often the butts of his wit, they always returned to his company with fresh delight, which they would not have done had there been either malice or rancour in what he said. He loved society, and in his choice of friends preferred those over whom he had a decided superiority in talent. He was satisfied when he put the table in a roar, and he did not like to see it done by another. When Garrick and Foote were present, he took the lead, and hardly allowed them an opportunity of showing their talents of mimicry, because he could excel them in their own art. He shone particularly in taking off the principal members of the House of Commons. Vanity was his ruling passion, and he sacrificed, even before his wife and daughter, all sense of decorum to a joke: I have seen instances of this which would have shocked Lord Rochester. Among the few he feared was Mr. Selwyn; and at a dinner at Lord Gower’s they had a trial of skill, in which Mr. Selwyn prevailed. When the company broke up, Mr. Townshend, to show he had no animosity, carried him in his carriage to White’s; and as they parted, Mr. Selwyn could not help saying, ‘Remember, this is the first set-down you have given me to-day.’ As Mr. Townshend lived at considerable expense, and had little paternal fortune, he speculated occasionally both in the French and English funds. With regard to the first, he had a concern with me in contrats sur le cuir, in which we lost, and he gave me his bond for his share of the difference, which was paid after his death. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer the Duke of Grafton gave a dinner to several of the principal men in the City to settle the loan. Mr. Townshend came in his nightgown, and after dinner, when the terms were settled, and everybody present wished to introduce some friend on the list of subscribers, he pretended to cast up the sums already admitted, said the loan was full, huddled up his papers, got into a chair and returned home, reserving to himself by this manœuvre a large share in the loan. Where he was really a great man was in Parliament. Nobody, excepting Mr. Pitt, possessed a style of oratory so perfectly suited to the House. He read sermons, particularly Sherlock, as models of eloquence and argumentation.”—E.

[38] Of Greenwich; a title that had been borne by her father, John Duke of Argyle.

[39] Mr. Andrews, Provost of the University of Dublin, M.P. for Derry, a man of talent and accomplishments, which he disgraced by his subserviency to the Castle and the Ministerial leaders. His agreeable conversation and conviviality made him very influential in Irish society. He died suddenly at Shrewsbury in 1774.—(Hardy’s Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. i. p. 149.)—E.

[40] A more detailed account of the Duke of York is given in George Selwyn and his Contemporaries, vol. ii. p. 195. He seems to have been a frivolous, dissipated youth, in all respects unlike the King, whose disapprobation of his conduct deserves praise rather than censure.—E.

[41] Lord North at first refused the Exchequer from a distrust of his ability to encounter Mr. George Grenville on financial questions. Lord Barrington was then applied to, and had consented, when Lord North agreed to accept.—(Lord Barrington’s Life, pp. 105–112.) The latter proved perfectly equal to his office, and had he risen no higher would have left a considerable name as a statesman of extensive “knowledge, of a versatile understanding fitted for all sorts of business, and a most accomplished debater.” Unhappily for himself and his country he wanted firmness to resist the solicitations of his Sovereign, and submitted to be the instrument of carrying into effect measures which have stamped his Administration with indelible disgrace.—An interesting account of Lord North is given in Lord Brougham’s Statesmen of the Time of George the Third, vol. i. pp. 1–49, and above all in Lady Charlotte Lindsay’s Letter in the Appendix, pp. 391–7.—E.

[42] The differences between Portugal and Spain were subsequently adjusted by an agreement that each nation should maintain the undisputed enjoyment of the country in its possession on the 28th of May, 1767. The plans of Pombal for the encouragement of the domestic trade of Portugal, such as his establishing the Oporto and other great companies, were necessarily most injurious to the interests of foreigners, and especially of the English, many of whose merchants were utterly ruined. Mr. Lyttelton was employed to obtain redress of these grievances without success.—E.

[43] Sir Thomas Sewell, formerly M.P. for Winchelsea, enjoyed most extensive practice at the Bar, and has left the reputation of a sound and acute judge. His decisions, however, are only known from the reports of them in Ambler’s collection, which unfortunately are very brief. The late Chief Baron Alexander, himself an excellent lawyer, used to mention him with great respect. He died in 1784, leaving an only son, Thomas Bailey Heath Sewell, who settled on an estate which his father had purchased in Surrey, in the neighbourhood of Chertsey, and died without issue in 1808.—E.

[44] See for an account of Lord Shannon, vol. i. p. 1.—E.

[45] Mr. Tisdall never obtained the object of his ambition; probably because the Government would not venture to promote an Irishman to such a post. He represented the University of Dublin for nearly thirty years, was a successful lawyer, and could hardly be termed an unsuccessful politician, for he steered a steady course through the tumults of his day, maintaining amidst occasional fluctuations of popularity great personal influence to the last. It is said of him that his countenance was never gay, his mind never gloomy. He died in 1777.—(Hardy’s Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. i. p 153.)—E.

[46] Far from interfering, as Walpole states, to defeat the intrigues of Tisdall and the Irish Council, Lord Townshend wholly lent himself to them, and nearly prevailed on the Cabinet to raise that ambitious lawyer to the Chancellorship. (Duke of Grafton’s MSS.) He afterwards yielded other points with equal facility, and indeed seldom showed any vigour throughout his Administration, except in his disputes with his colleagues in England. He enjoyed advantages which had been denied to his predecessors; for the English Government were at length beginning to feel “that the time must come when a different plan of government ought to take place in Ireland. Lord Chatham had intended to begin it; and, to enable himself to contend with the powerful connexions there, proposed to establish himself upon the basis of a just popularity, by shortening the duration of Parliament, and granting other measures which the Irish appeared to have most at heart. These views went far beyond the reach of Lord Townshend.” (MS. Letter from Lord Camden to the Duke of Grafton.) Instructions were accordingly given to Lord Townshend in a spirit of great liberality for that day; but he frittered away their effect by the indiscretion with which he executed them. The firmness, consistency, and judgment—the constant exercise of perseverance and self denial, requisite for contending with the factions that stood between the Crown and the people, did not belong to him. If he could only enjoy his ease and his pleasures, and receive the homage usually paid to his station, he was content; the patronage of the Castle continued to be applied to the same unworthy purposes as before, and the interests of the people to be equally neglected. If neither harsh nor oppressive, he held the reins of Government with too careless a hand for its course to be attended with real benefit to the country.—E.

[47] John Hobart, third Earl of Buckinghamshire; he had already been Ambassador in Russia, and in 1777 succeeded Lord Harcourt as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. His Administration partook of the weakness of Lord North’s Government, as was too plainly shown by the embodying of the Irish volunteers, and the concessions made to Irish trade; the latter, however just, being too evidently extorted from the Government to obtain any lasting gratitude. Lord Buckinghamshire was an amiable nobleman of fair intentions and pleasing manners. He died in 1783, without male issue.—E.

[48] John third Duke of Roxburgh, born in 1740, succeeded his father in 1755. He was one of the handsomest men of his day, and not less remarkable for the grace and nobleness of his manners. In early life, during his travels he visited the small court of Mecklenburgh, where he is said to have gained the affections of the Princess Christiana, the Duke’s eldest daughter. Indeed, their marriage was believed to have been prevented only by the application of George the Third for the hand of her younger sister. This belief was strengthened by the Princess and the Duke remaining unmarried through life. Notwithstanding this incident, the Duke became a favourite companion of George the Third. His name is now best known as an eminent collector of books. He died in 1804, and was succeeded by his cousin, Lord Bellenden, on whose death the title was claimed by Sir James Innes, and, after a long process, the House of Lords pronounced him the fifth Duke of Roxburgh in 1812.—(Wood’s Peerage of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 456.)—E.

[49] Mr. Burke’s speech may be found in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 386, where it is stated to be the first of his speeches of which a report has been preserved. The opinions he entertained on the dearness of provisions are stated with more force and perspicuity in his celebrated “Thoughts on Scarcity.” (Works, vol, vii. p. 375.) A petition from the City was presented on the first day of the session, in which, after soliciting the continuance of the temporary acts passed in the preceding session, prohibiting the exportation of corn, and allowing its free importation, the petitioners ascribe the high price of meat in a great degree to the recent increase in the breeding of horses, owing partly to the growing practice of employing them instead of oxen in tillage, and partly to the exportations to the Continent; whereby the number of cattle for slaughter was necessarily diminished; secondly, to the unlimited consumption of ewe lambs and cow calves in all seasons of the year, merely to gratify the unreasonable appetites of the rich and luxurious. The consolidation of small farms was also deprecated in the strongest terms.—The Duke of Grafton was opposed to unlimited importation of corn, on the ground that it would encourage smuggling.—(Bedford MSS.)—E.

[50] Dr. Loyd, Dean of Norwich, who had been tutor to Mr. Grenville’s sons.

[51] He was couched during this negotiation, in which he took little or no part, though his name was often made use of. He recovered a small degree of sight, and went into public and played at cards, yet, as he said himself, saw very imperfectly.

[52] Mr. Meynell was M.P. for Stafford, and the Duke’s intimate friend, as appears in his Grace’s Memoirs. He was a man of high fashion, in which service he spent a large portion of a noble estate on the turf and other expensive amusements and vices so popular with the aristocracy of that day. Captain Meynell, M.P. for Lisburn, is his grandson and lineal representative.—E.

[53] I can find nothing among the Bedford papers to show how the negotiation of the Bedford party with the Government originated, or how it was conducted. The following are the last letters that passed between the Duke and Mr. Grenville previous to their political separation. Some unimportant matter only is omitted.

Duke of Bedford to Mr. Grenville.

Woburn Abbey, Nov. 5th, 1767.

“I should have been very glad to have had an opportunity of talking to you fully on the present state of political affairs, and of the steps it may be proper to take at the beginning of the ensuing session. If such a coalition as to unite in Opposition all those who are adverse to the present Administration could be obtained, it would at least have this one good effect—to render the Ministers incapable of carrying on the business of this session, though I fear a further coalition of what would be advisable to be done in future would be impracticable. You see I am readier to pull down than to set up; that is owing to the unfortunate crisis of the times. So far as to what relates to the general plan of politics.”

Mr. Grenville to the Duke of Bedford.

“Weston, November 6th, 1767.

“I shall always be happy in any opportunity of explaining to your Grace my ideas upon the public business, and of improving myself by learning your opinion, which nobody can more highly regard than I do. I purpose being in London on the Saturday before the meeting of Parliament, when my first care will be to wait upon your Grace, if you are then arrived. In the mean time, as you wish to know my thoughts on the present state of political affairs, I can only say that they continue to be the same that you have long known them. I think that public measures must be the great object of every honest man’s attention, and that from them we must derive our security, or shortly meet with our destruction. By public measures, I mean the maintaining the peace abroad with the utmost vigilance, by the firmest as well as the most temperate conduct, both of which I look on as equally necessary for that purpose;—I mean a settled, moderate, and frugal Government at home, to heal the grievous wounds which contrary principles have inflicted upon us;—I mean the availing ourselves of every resource to save, if possible, our sinking public credit, to restore our declining trade, and to strengthen us in time of peace against that day of danger which the first war we are engaged in must bring upon us;—I mean the asserting and establishing the lawful authority of the King and Parliament over every part of our dominions in every part of the world: these, my dear lord, I am sensible are general expressions, which few gentlemen in words will venture directly to contradict; but I, as well as your Grace, mean the reality and not the words, and can therefore only give an assent to a system of measures conformable to them. I shall readily support these principles, whoever shall propose them; and I never can support any Ministry which act in contradiction to them. The steps to be taken at the beginning of the ensuing session must necessarily depend on the plan to be opened by the Ministry, if any is formed, and on the dispositions of mankind. I am entirely ignorant of the former; but as to the latter, it appears to me that there is a general listlessness and supineness in all degrees of men, from which I fear nothing but the stroke of calamity will rouse them. The present Ministry may probably be overturned by many events, and from their own weakness and inability, if no other cause co-operates. But the difficulty in the present unhappy crisis, as your Grace truly observes, is how to set up what is right; and I must fairly own that I do not see any means of it, until the King’s mind shall be possessed with a serious conviction of the danger, or the people be brought to open their eyes on the brink of a precipice before they fall into it. My course, however, will be, at all events, to acquit myself of what I owe to them and to my friends, as well as to my own character and opinions; but I believe that our attendance will be very thin in the House of Commons, from a variety of circumstances.”

No meeting took place between the Duke of Bedford and Mr. Grenville subsequently to the date of these letters, though they remained at their country seats, within a few hours’ journey of each other, for the ensuing fortnight. The tone of the correspondence is ominous of the approaching rupture; and if the Duke had been seeking a fair pretext for dissolving his connection with an impracticable associate, it was certainly presented by Mr. Grenville’s letter. Nothing could be more plain than that Mr. Grenville would oppose any Administration that might succeed the Duke of Grafton’s, unless it submitted to his dictation,—or, in other words, the little that could be gained by overthrowing the Duke of Grafton’s Government would be the substitution of one weak Government for another. The Duke of Bedford had, upon principle, long considered that of all Governments a weak one was the worst. It was from this feeling alone that, when a member of Mr. Grenville’s Cabinet, he had eagerly courted the accession of Mr. Pitt, whose views in many respects differed much from his own, and this was the main ground of his opposition to the Duke of Grafton. His scruples being removed by the retirement of Conway, it was now in his power to give the Government the strength which it so much wanted. This consideration was no doubt strongly urged upon him by Mr. Rigby, Lord Weymouth, and other aspirants to office. It was his nature to love his friends—not wisely, but too well; and he perhaps more readily yielded to their wishes from the resolution he had taken to accept nothing for himself. On the 20th of November he came to London to prepare for the operation on his eyes, which was performed on the 5th of December by Baron Wenzel, the celebrated oculist, so that, as Walpole observes, it was impossible for him to have been concerned in the details of the negotiation.—E.

[54] Lord Lisburne had been raised to an Irish Earldom in the preceding year, almost immediately on his succeeding his father. He was great-grandson of the celebrated Earl of Rochester, one of whose daughters, and eventually coheiresses, had married Mr. Vaughan, the grandfather of Lord Lisburne. He was a good scholar, and the editor has seen in the library he collected at Mamhead in Devonshire, the seat where he passed his latter years, many evidences of his attention to ancient and modern literature. He died at an advanced age in 1800. The present Lord Lisburne is his grandson.—E.

[55] He was entirely in the Grenville interest.—E.

[56] The Jockey Club was composed of noblemen and gentlemen frequenters of Newmarket.

[57] See more of Lord Weymouth vol. ii. p. 176, note.—E.

[58] Governor Walsh was an intimate friend of Lord Clive, through whom he probably was thus employed by Mr. Grenville, that nobleman’s political patron.—E.

[59] Thomas Brand, Esq., of the Hoo in Hertfordshire, had married Lady Caroline Pierrepont, half-aunt of the Duchess of Bedford. He died before any creation of peers, which did not happen till ten years after this date. [Mr. Brand was M.P. for Shoreham, and died in 1770; his son married Gertrude Roper, sister and heir of Lord Dacre, on whose death she succeeded to that ancient barony, which descended to her son, Thomas Brand, the present Lord Dacre, in 1819.—E.]

[60] See vol. i. p. 358, note.—E.

[61] Afterwards Ambassador at Vienna, and at length Secretary of State.—E.

[62] Frederic St. John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. [He was nephew and successor of the famous Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, to whom he bore some resemblance, in personal graces and vivacity, as well as in laxity of morals. Several of his letters are given in “George Selwyn and his Cotemporaries,” and show a smattering of literature. His marriage with the accomplished Lady Diana Beauclerc was dissolved more from his fault than hers in 1768, and he died in 1787. The present Viscount is his grandson.—E.]

[63] Robert Sawyer Herbert, uncle of the Earl of Pembroke. [He was Surveyor-General of the Crown Lands from 1760 to 1768, and died in 1769.—E.]

[64] A clear and impartial statement of this great case is given by Mr. Adolphus, in his History, vol. i. p. 308.—E.

[65] Edward Willes, second son of Sir John Willes, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the reign of George the Second.

[66] Attorney-General to King George the Second.

[67] Second son of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.

[68] Dunning’s relations with Wilkes and with Lord Shelburne furnish abundant reasons for the undistinguished figure he made in the House during the short period that he remained Solicitor-General. He was of course distrusted and slighted by Lord North, who would have obtained his dismissal within a few months after his appointment, but for the intervention of Lord Camden.—(Duke of Grafton’s MS. Memoirs.) Few men could have succeeded under such circumstances. As soon as he was released from this constraint, his great powers obtained the full recognition of the House. Wraxall describes him (after the date of these Memoirs) as one of the leaders of the Opposition, the constant associate, and not unworthy fellow labourer of Burke, and says, “that so powerful was reason, flowing from his lips, that every murmur became hushed and every ear attentive. Though he neither delighted nor entertained his hearers, he subdued them by powers of argumentative ratiocination which have rarely been exceeded.”—(Historical Memoirs, vol. i. p. 42.) His success was more remarkable from the extreme meanness of his person, and the badness of his voice. At the bar he excited universal admiration. Hannah More, in a letter on the Duchess of Kingston’s trial, wrote of him,—“His manner is insufferably bad, coughing and spitting at every word, but his sense and expression pointed to the last degree. He made her Grace shed bitter tears.” A great authority (Lord Brougham) has recorded that the fame of his legal arguments still lives in Westminster Hall,—(Historical Sketches, &c., vol. iii. p. 158) and one of the most accomplished of his contemporaries has left a tribute to his memory, so beautifully worded that one cannot read it without pleasure. “His language was always pure, always elegant, and the best words dropped easily from his lips into the best places with a fluency at all times astonishing, and when he had perfect health really melodious. That faculty, however, in which no mortal ever surpassed him, and which all found irresistible, was his wit. This relieved the weary, calmed the resentful, and animated the drowsy; this drew smiles even from such as were the objects of it, and scattered flowers over a desert, and, like sun-beams sparkling on a lake, gave spirit and vivacity to the dullest and least interesting cause. Not that his accomplishments as an advocate consisted principally of volubility of speech, or liveliness of raillery. He was endued with an intellect sedate yet penetrating, clear yet profound, subtle yet strong. His knowledge, too, was equal to his imagination, and his memory to his knowledge.” (Sir William Jones’s Works, vol. iv. p. 577.)—E.

[69] Lord Bottetort’s proposal was absolutely monstrous, being nothing less than a gross fraud on his creditors. In the present day it would not have been entertained for a moment. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Home Office, however, raised any objections, and it would seem from the Duke of Grafton’s Memoirs that the case was heard before the Commissioners of the Privy Seal, and the claim allowed; but on referring to the Records in the Privy Seal Office, I find that the patent did not pass.—E.

[70] Sir Thomas Stapylton, Bart., of Rotherfield Greys, Oxon, married Mary, daughter of Mr. Fane of Wormsley, and niece of the Earl of Westmoreland. His eldest son became in 1788 Lord le Despencer, the abeyance of that ancient barony having been determined in his favour.—E.

[71] The Honourable Robert Lee, uncle to the Earl of Lichfield, whom he succeeded in that title in 1772. He died without issue in 1770, and was the last of his family. The title became extinct and Ditchly has descended to Lord Dillon.—E.

[72] The proceedings are reported in Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 397. Mr. Adolphus says in a note to his History, vol. i. p. 337. “The whole matter was treated with great ridicule by writers of all parties,” a statement which may easily be believed if Mr. Grattan’s story be true, that the peccant aldermen completed their bargain with the Duke of Marlborough during their imprisonment in Newgate.—E.

[73] When this was written, it alluded only to the opposition occasioned by Lord George in Ireland. He has since engrafted himself on Mr. Grenville’s persecution of America.

[74] Sir Robert Rich, Bart., had been made Field Marshal in 1757. His Brigadier’s commission is dated as far back as 1727, so that he must have been very aged when he died. His name does not appear as having ever been employed on active service. He was succeeded in his baronetcy and estates by his eldest son, General Rich, who had lost an arm at Culloden; one of his daughters became the second wife of Lord Lyttelton.—E.

[75] Chauncy Townshend was M.P. for Wigton in Scotland. He died in 1770. The Annual Register states that he was the first Englishman that represented a Scotch borough (vol. xiii. p. 114). His son became an Alderman for the City of London, and a politician of sufficient notoriety to be often noticed in this work.—E.

[76] Thomas Fonnereau, of Christ-church Park, near Ipswich. He was out of humour with the Minister for having refused him the place of Receiver-General of Suffolk. It is said that he had the offer of being Joint Postmaster General, which did not suit or satisfy him. He had the reputation of being very acute and persevering in business; the Lizard Lighthouses were projected and erected by him, and he had a lease of the tolls, which must have been very productive; but his expenses at Aldborough and Sudbury, for which he also returned a member, kept him poor. He had made himself remarkable for his loyalty in the rebellion of 1745, when he made a speech to the grand jury of Suffolk, which was publicly distributed at their request. He was obstinate rather than peevish, and his manners were generally very agreeable. He died a bachelor in 1779, in the eightieth year of his age.—E.

[77] Nullum tempus occurrit regi et ecclesiæ: an old absurd maxim of law.

[78] Vide The Character of Wilkes as a Politician and a Writer, in Lord Brougham’s “Statesmen of the Time of George the Third,” vol. iii. p. 181.

[79] “An Enquiry into the Doctrine lately propagated concerning Libels, Warrants, and the Seizure of Papers, with a view to some late proceedings, and the defence of them by the majority upon the principles of the Constitution, in a letter to Mr. Almon from the father of Candor.” In the later editions it is intituled “A Letter concerning Libels, &c.,” and both Almon and “the father of Candor” are removed from the title page. “Candor” is the signature of a very clever letter to the Public Advertiser published a short time before by Almon on the same subject, severely attacking the Government under the pretence of defending it. The humour is sustained through fifty-four pages with great skill and vivacity, and the points in controversy are very cleverly handled. It may still be read with interest. “The Enquiry” was one of the most popular tracts of its day. It went through five editions in a few months. It has the merit of propounding sound constitutional doctrines in a clear and familiar style; of boldly denouncing error, and disseminating truth. The reasoning is forcible, and the legal research and knowledge displayed throughout are very considerable, especially in the use made of the early decisions of the Courts of Law. It may fairly be said to have settled the question, for very little was urged on the other side afterwards. As a literary composition, it can claim but moderate praise. The style is loose and careless, and wants the easy flow, the perspicuous diction and classical taste which may be found in some other contemporary tracts—such, for instance, as Mr. Charles Yorke’s “Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture.” In parts it is rather dull, and the materials, valuable as they are, might have been arranged with more effect. They appear to have come from different and unequal hands; for if the acuteness, wit, and learning of Dunning may be traced through many pages, remarks occasionally occur which could hardly have proceeded from a practising lawyer. I can find no authority in support of the general belief of his being the author. I suspect he only revised it, and that Lord Chatham did the same. There are passages strongly partaking of the spirit and peculiar mode of expression of the latter.

Some interesting extracts might be made from this able tract. The following severe censure of Lord Mansfield must have been written by one who well knew the character he was describing. “I wish that when a Chief is found to be clandestinely meddling in matters of State in perversion of the law, he may be dragged into broad day-light, and his name and memory be branded for ever to the latest posterity. I cannot indeed figure to myself a meaner or more pernicious person than a chief justice, with a great income for life given him by the public, in order to render him independent, privately listening to every inclination of every ministry, and warping and wire-drawing the plain letter of the law in order to accommodate it to their inclinations, instead of pursuing the course of established precedents, inviolably, intrepidly, and openly, without regard to party or person. The chapter of expediency is the very worst source of adjudication, inasmuch as it tends to the setting afloat, by degrees, of the whole law of the realm.

“In our law the judges are bound by a sacred oath to determine according to the known laws and ancient customs of the realm, set down in judicial decisions and resolutions of learned, wise, and upright judges, upon a variety of particular facts and cases, which, when they have been thus in use, and practised time out of mind, are a part of the common law of the kingdom * * * ‘To allow of any man’s discretion,’ says Lord Coke, ‘that sits in the seat of justice, would bring forth a monstrous confusion.’ It is indeed wonderful that any man should have so servile a disposition; for let his abilities be what they will, he will always be regarded as a contemptible personage. This sort of profligate magistrate may be sure of being used by every ministry, but of being esteemed by none; seeing no set of men can depend upon him any longer than they remain in office and power, his only principle of action being an implicit obedience to the old tutelar Saint at St. James’s. He must be in truth—

‘A timorous foe, and a suspicious friend,
Dreading even fools:’

and cowardice in a judge is but another name for corruption.” P. 85.—E.

[80] They were not written by Dr. Franklin, but by John Dickenson, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and gained for their author the thanks of the Assembly of Massachusets. He warned his countrymen not to be deluded by the moderate rate of the new duties,—a circumstance which he characterized as artfully intended to prepare their reception of a collar, whose increasing weight would gradually bow them to the ground; and he encouraged them to hope that a deliverance from this evil would be obtained by a resumption of the same general and animated opposition which had procured the repeal of the Stamp Act. The arguments by which the author supported his doctrine of the illegality of internal taxes on America, are said to have converted Dr. Franklin. They had at least the merit of furnishing an excuse for his change of opinion.—(Grahame’s History of North America, vol. iv. p. 262.)—E.

[81] See infra.

[82] “Rodondo; or, the State Jugglers,” was published in 1763. The third canto soon followed the first and second; and a fourth was promised, but never appeared, probably owing to the author’s being rewarded with the post of Attorney-General of Grenada, where he died in 1774. He also wrote “Woodstock; a Poem,” reprinted in Pearch’s collection. His daughter married Dr. afterwards Sir John Elliot, the eminent physician.—(MS. note in the British Museum.)

With abundance of humour and no mean skill in versification, this poem might have ranked high among English satires, had the author bestowed more pains on its action; this is below criticism. A description of Mr. Pitt after the manner of Hudibras, with an invocation to the Muse, fills the first canto.—The second contains little beyond a shrewish lecture delivered by Lady Chatham to Mr. Pitt, and a long message from the latter to his footman. In the third is Mr. Pitt’s capitulation to the gout, and the distribution of his defects among his followers. The various characters are introduced awkwardly enough, as if to show the author’s proficiency in the art of vituperation; and in the last canto, where he descends to attack some of the City politicians, his coarseness becomes disgusting. This particularly applies to his invectives against Churchill. The shafts which he aims at Pitt are more worthy of their object.

The motto is ingenious and appropriate:

“Uno minor est Jove—dives,
Liber, honoratus, pulcher, rex denique regum
Præcipue sanus, nisi cum pituita molesta est.”

After fixing the date of his story:—

“When knowledge, courage, sense, and worth
Were first defined by North and South,
And Tweed’s irremeable waves
Became the boundary of knaves;—”

a portrait is given of the hero, of which these lines are a fair specimen.

“He raised the Nation’s apprehensions,
With Court-corruption, Places, Pensions:
Words which, when well dissected, mean,
That I am out and you are in;
And which, when properly repeated,
In every Question that’s debated,
Can ope a thousand mouths at once,
And make a hero of a dunce.
Your IF is good at making peace:
Rodondo went to war with these.

* * * * *

The Nation knows
My maxim ever was Oppose;
And be the Minister who will,
My maxim is—Oppose him still.
For though to Britain necessary,
’Tis good for me that all miscarry,
Excepting one—I need not name him,—
Envy herself would blush to blame him.”

The Common Destiny of Statesmen is lively and imaginative, but too long to be inserted here.

The following lines are also of more than common merit:—

“O Disappointment! but for thee,
What were this land of liberty?
Were’t not for thee on English ground
No trace of Patriot could be found.
Thou comest indeed with rueful face
To fruitless hunters after place,
Blasting their hopes, but in exchange,
Presenting prospects of revenge.
Just so an egg when overdrest
Becomes confounded hard to digest;
And in the place of wholesome chyle,
Produces copious floods of bile.”—E.

[83] This satire was published in 1703, in small 4to. (66 pages) with this title, “Patriotism; a mock heroic, in five cantos.”

“Behold thy Gods O Israel.” (1 Kings.)

Cumberland says of this poem that “it is one of the keenest and wittiest satires extant in our language. Lord Temple, Wilkes, and others of the party were attacked with unsparing asperity, and much critical acumen. Churchill, the Dryden of the age, and indisputably a man of first-rate genius, was too candid not to acknowledge the merit of the poem; and when he declined taking up the gauntlet so pointedly thrown down to him, it was not because he held his challenger in contempt.” (Memoirs, vol. i. p. 212.) True as this may partially be, the poem has great defects. The poverty and incompleteness of the allegory are alone fatal to its interest; Pride, Faction, Folly and Ambition are made to perambulate the town, to carouse together, and reciprocate declamatory speeches without any adequate result,—these speeches indeed being the only object for which they are introduced. The total absence of incident is sought to be redeemed by descriptions, some of which are lively enough. Abuse of popular licence and eulogies of the King and his Ministers form the staple of the poem. It opens with an account of the visit of Pride to the Mansion House, and the hospitality of Beckford is rather ungratefully returned by the following (among other) spirited lines on his followers.

“To please the mob Byng stains the blushing deep,
And Blakeney[A] earns a Peerage in his sleep;
To please the mob our fleets their canvas strain,
And expeditions hide the wondering main.

The main more wondering wafts them back, alas!
Thinned with the wars of Rochfort and St. Cas.
What matter, since defeat our joy inspires,
And Cassel[B] lost can light a thousand fires?”

[A] He was said to have been confined to his bed during the defence of Minorca, for which he was so extravagantly rewarded.

[B] The gallant but unsuccessful affair of Cassel in which the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick was wounded.

The political libels on the King are thus sarcastically described:

“Recast the royal virtues, which before
The nation worshipped, and cry down the ore,
To teach the people this indulgent reign
With every charge of tyranny to stain,—
To swallow every contradiction down,—
In Antonine’s mild look see Nero’s frown,—
Wrest his intention and distort each fact,
And lend them treason till they long to act;
In terms of duty wrap each boisterous deed,—
Kneel while we stab, and libel while we plead.”

This compliment on the King is pretty:

“Who from the sceptre no exemption draws,
And is but the first subject of the laws.”

His gratitude to Lord Bute has flowered in a panegyric, which may interest the reader from being one of the very few poetical tributes obtained by that nobleman approaching mediocrity.

“Oh! if we seize with skill the coming hour,
And re-invest us with the robe of power—
Rule while we live—let future days transmute
To every merit all we’ve charged on Bute.
Let late Posterity receive his name,
And swell its sails with every breath of fame:
Downward as far as Time shall roll his tide,
With every pendant flying let it glide;
And Truth emerging from the clouds we raise,
Gild all their orient colours with her blaze.
Let his loved arts, attendant on his way,
Their wanton trophies to the gale display;
While each dispassionate, each honest pen,
(Deterred by clamour, nor allured by gain,—
Bard or Historian—) shall from either shore,
Hail its approach, and its great course explore;
Faithful to Probity and Virtue’s cause,
Pursue its progress, and direct th’ applause.
Glad Gratulation shall with shouts approve,
And own him worthy of his Sovereign’s love.”

The success of this satire brought an accumulation of favours on the author, as, in addition to a commissionership of lotteries, and other small places, he received a pension for the lives of himself and his wife of 500l. per annum. He was the only son of the celebrated critic, and dabbled a little in criticism himself, though he was too careless to become eminent in it. He wrote several party poems in support of Lord Bute’s administration—all long since forgotten, as is his unsuccessful play of “The Wishes,” which his nephew Cumberland warmly praises for the brilliancy of its dialogue. “Philodamus,” another of his dramas, equally failed, but was honoured with an elaborate commentary by Gray; in return, perhaps, for the author’s beautiful designs to the 4to edition of that poet’s works. These designs, indeed, generally show considerable taste; and he was no doubt an eminently accomplished person. Unhappily, he was also eminently improvident, and notwithstanding a handsome patrimony which descended to him from his father, and the substantial bounty of Lord Bute, he fell into pecuniary difficulties, which harassed him to the end of his life. The editor has seen in the Island of Jersey a lonely house formerly belonging to Lord Granville, where he is described by Walpole as residing for some years with a large family of daughters. He died towards the close of the last century.—E.

[84] Mr. Anstey died in 1805, being upwards of eighty years of age. His life had been easy and prosperous, and he cultivated literature only as an amusement. The criticism passed by Walpole on his works has been confirmed by posterity. Their inequality is not easily explained. He was a good classical scholar, as he has shown by his translations in Latin verse, which are very prettily turned.—E.

[85] It may appear strange to us that a work of so little merit as Mrs. Macaulay’s History should be mentioned by Walpole almost in the same sentence with Robertson’s “Charles the Fifth,” but other writers of that day have bestowed on it equally elaborate and still more complimentary criticism. Indeed, it met, on its original publication, with a warmth of praise that presents a striking contrast to the discouraging reception of the early volumes of Hume. Madame Roland regarded it as hardly inferior to Tacitus. The adventitious events which produced this perversion of judgment in a large portion of the public have long ceased to operate, and the discredit which deservedly attaches to Mrs. Macaulay’s History has extended rather unjustly to her talents. She was a vain, self-opinionated, and prejudiced, but also a clever woman. Her works show occasionally considerable power of writing, especially in description; and carelessly as she consulted original authorities, and unfairly as she used them, she may in that respect bear no dishonourable comparison with Smollett, and others of her contemporaries. She is at least entitled to the praise of having been the first, in order, of our female historians. Mrs. Macaulay died in 1791, aged fifty-eight. An imprudent marriage, late in life, with a man much younger and in a much lower station than herself, alienated from her most of her friends, and hastened the downfal of a literary reputation, which had barely survived the wreck of the small section of politicians with whom she was connected.—E.

[86] This is the case in her fourth volume; in the fifth, she takes the contrary extreme.

[87] The letter was delivered at the Palace by Wilkes’s footman, and as unceremoniously returned. It is not disrespectfully worded. It is printed in Almon’s Life of Wilkes, vol. iii.—E.

[88] Going to ask the vote of a petty shopkeeper in Wapping, the man desired Wilkes to wait a moment, went up stairs and brought him down a bank-note of £20. Wilkes said he wanted his vote, not his money. The man replied, he must accept both or neither.

[89] Sir Robert Ladbrooke had filled the office of Lord Mayor in 1747, and so much to the satisfaction of the citizens that they elected him at the first vacancy, and he kept his seat till his death, at an advanced age, in 1773. (Note to Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. p. 70.)—E.

[90] Barlow Trecothick was an opulent merchant in the American trade, and not, as Dr. Johnson supposed, an American. He supported Wilkes with less warmth, but more judgment than Beckford, Mawbey, and Townshend, and Sawbridge, and the other prominent City patriots. Probably he had the penetration to see deeper into his character and views. Wilkes, in consequence, appears not to have lived on any intimate footing with him. He spoke well in Parliament. He was by far the ablest man of the party that ruled the City in that day. He died at Addington in Surrey, where he had a considerable estate, in 1775. His epitaph states, with more truth than elegance of expression, “that he was much esteemed by the merchants for his integrity and knowledge of commerce, truly beloved by his fellow-citizens, who chose him as their representative in Parliament, and sincerely lamented by his friends and relations, who looked up to and admired his virtues.”—E.

[91] Sir Richard Glynn, an opulent banker in the City, and alderman. He had been Lord Mayor in 1758, and was created a baronet in 1759. He died in 1773: he was the founder of the great banking-house which still hears his name. He married twice, and left issue by both marriages. His eldest son by his second marriage was created a baronet in 1800.—E.

[92] Son of the late Speaker. Colonel George Onslow was the son of the General, brother of the Speaker. (See infra.)

[93] Cotes became a bankrupt in Feb. 1767.—E.

[94] It was for the forty-fifth number of the North Briton that Wilkes had been prosecuted.

[95] Sir William Beauchamp Proctor, of Langley Park, Norfolk, had represented the county from 1747 to 1768. He had been made a Knight of the Bath on the King’s accession. He made a fruitless application for Lord Chatham’s support in this contest; his Lordship’s answer being that he did not meddle with elections. Sir William Beauchamp Proctor died in 1778, aged fifty-one.—E.

[96] Elizabeth Gunning, sister of the celebrated Countess of Coventry, had first married the Duke of Hamilton, and afterwards John Campbell, Marquis of Lorn, eldest son of John Duke of Argyle, whom he succeeded in the title, and thus became mother of the two heirs of the great rival houses of Hamilton and Argyle. She was Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte, and had gone to fetch her from Mecklenburg, with the Duchess of Ancaster, Mistress of the Robes. Her eldest son, Duke Hamilton, died before he was of age. Lord Douglas Hamilton, his brother, succeeded him. The Duchess Elizabeth, as guardian of her sons, carried on the famous law-suit against Mr. Douglas for the succession of his (supposed) uncle, the Duke of Douglas, of which more will be said hereafter. By Duke Hamilton she had one daughter, Lady Elizabeth, afterwards married to the Earl of Derby. By Lord Lorn she had two sons, the eldest of which died an infant, and two daughters. In her widowhood she had refused the hand of the Duke of Bridgwater. She was entirely governed by the artful Lady Susan Stuart, daughter of the Earl of Galloway, afterwards Countess Gower, on whose account she much offended the Queen, as will be said hereafter; but recovering her favour, was created an English Baroness, for the benefit of her eldest son, Duke Hamilton. It is very remarkable that this great lady and her sister, Lady Coventry, had been originally so poor, that they had thoughts of being actresses; and when they were first presented to the Earl of Harrington, the Lord-Lieutenant, at the Castle of Dublin, Mrs. Woffington, the actress, lent clothes to them. They no sooner appeared in England than their beauty drew crowds after them wherever they went. Duke Hamilton married the second in such haste, that, having no ring ready, they made use of one from the bed-curtain. The Duchess was more delicate than her sister, with the most beautiful hands and arms in the world; but Lady Coventry was still handsomer, had infinite life and vivacity, the finest eyes in the world, nose, and mouth, excepting that both had bad teeth. Lady Coventry danced like a nymph, and was too kind a one. The Duchess always preserved her character. Lady Coventry died young, of a consumption. Till within a few days of her death she lay on a couch with a looking-glass in her hand. When she found her beauty, which she idolized, was quite gone, she took to her bed, and would be seen by nobody—not even by her nurse, suffering only the light of a lamp in her room. She then took leave of her husband, who had forgiven her errors, and died with the utmost resignation. It was in October. I had dined with her in the foregoing June, with my niece, the beautiful Lady Waldegrave, then just married, since Duchess of Gloucester. They stood in the window in the full sun, and though Lady Coventry was wasted and faded, and Lady Waldegrave in all her glow of beauty, in spite of my partiality to my niece, I could not but own to myself that Lady Coventry was still superior. It was a less triumph, as Lord Pembroke was so fickle, that Lady Coventry gave great uneasiness to his lovely wife, Lady Elizabeth Spencer, who, in the Madonna style, was divinely beautiful. As the Gunnings made so much noise, it may be excused in a note if I mention another anecdote. Soon after Lady Coventry was married, I was at an assembly at Bedford House, and drew together, her, the charming Lady Emily Lenox, then Marchioness of Kildare, and since Duchess of Leinster, and Mrs. Penelope Pitt, since Lady Rivers (the two last celebrated in my poem of “The Beauties;”) I said I wanted to decide which was the handsomest. They said I should declare. I replied, that was hard, but since they insisted, I would—and “I give it,” added I, “to Lady Kildare, because she does what you both try to do—blush.” These trifling anecdotes may at least be as amusing us the more serious follies committed by and about Wilkes.

[97] Mr. Jenkinson had also a powerful family interest in Oxfordshire, being the eldest son of Colonel Charles Jenkinson, whose father and brother, each a Sir Robert Jenkinson, had in turn represented the county for many years. His introduction to public life has been always ascribed to the zealous and effectual support he gave to Lord Parker and Sir Edward Turner in the famous contest for the county, in 1754, when many successful poetical squibs came from his pen. Sir Edward Turner or his friend Lord Harcourt, the chief of the Oxfordshire Tories, certainly obtained for him the post of private secretary to Lord Bute.—E.

[98] Lord Baltimore was properly acquitted, but the trial brought before the public such disgusting instances of his profligacy as to render the intervention of the Methodists to direct the indignation of the people against him quite superfluous. He soon after went abroad, and died at Naples in 1771, and having left no issue by his wife, a daughter of the Duke of Kingston, his title became extinct.—(Selwyn and his Contemporaries, vol. ii.)—He published in 1767 “A Tour in the Year 1763–4, with Remarks on the East, and the Turks, &c.” It was reprinted in 1768, and has since become very rare. A curious account of it and of its author is given in the “Bibliothèque des Voyages,” vol. ii. p. 79.—E.

[99] The report of these proceedings by Sir James Burrow would in some measure justify this observation of Walpole, for there seems from it to have been much coquetting between the Bench and the Attorney-General (De Grey), and an apparent desire by each to shift the responsibility upon the shoulders of the other. In delivering judgment upon the two cross motions then before the Court, viz. that of the Attorney-General for Wilkes’s committal, and that of Serjeant Glynn that Wilkes should be admitted to bail, Lord Mansfield makes this remarkable admission:—“I have no doubt we might take notice of him upon his voluntary appearance as the person outlawed and commit or bail him, but we are not absolutely bound to do it without some reason to excuse the going out of the regular course.” And in reference to the conduct of the Attorney-General he thus expresses himself, “I don’t see why the Attorney-General should demand of the Court to commit the defendant upon the outlawry, when he himself has suffered him to go at large without any attempt to take him up, or even issuing process against him.” (Rex v. Wilkes,—Burrow’s Reports, vol. iv. p. 2531–5.)—E.

[100] The reason assigned for these voluntary errors is, that the punishment of outlawry is greater than the crime on which it is inflicted—but is it more sensible to facilitate the defeat of an outlawry than to lessen too rigorous a punishment? [This was the ground mainly relied on by Mr. Justice Yates in his judgment, but was not adverted to either by Lord Mansfield, Mr. Justice Acton, or Mr. Justice Willes, in disposing of these preliminary motions. It is now admitted that the object of the process in outlawry is not penal, but to enforce the personal appearance of the party against whom it is issued.—E.]

[101] This is probably a mistake for Northampton, in the contest for which and the ensuing petition Lord Spencer expended at least 70,000l.—E.

[102] The Duke of Grafton says in his Memoirs, that at the first Cabinet no one contemplated the difficulties which afterwards arose out of Wilkes’s case. Many persons, among whom was Walpole himself, considered that Parliament was the very place where Wilkes would do least hurt. (Letter to Sir Horace Mann, 31st of March, vol. i. p. 384.)—E.

[103] Walpole’s statement of the decided view taken by the King of Wilkes’s case from the very first is perfectly correct. In a letter to Lord North of the 25th of April, the King says, “Though entirely relying on your attachment to my person as well as in your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential and must be effected. The case of Mr. Ward, in the reign of my great-grandfather, seems to point out the proper mode of proceeding. If any man were capable of forgetting his criminal writings, his speech in court last Wednesday, &c.”—(This extract was made by the editor from the King’s letters to Lord North,—a very curious and interesting collection, of which the friendship of Lord Brougham obtained him the perusal from Lady Charlotte Lindsay.)—E.

[104] His daughter returning from France at the time of the Dauphin’s wedding, when all post-horses were stopped for the service and relays of the Dauphiness, who was expected from Vienna, Miss Wilkes was regularly furnished with post-horses to Calais. [There is no confirmation of this statement in Wilkes’s correspondence, nor is it reconcilable with the fact that he was at that period in great distress for even small sums. The suspicion, however, was very general. Lacretelle says, “Wilkes, en agitant sa patrie, servit si bien les desseins du Duc de Choiseul que quelques Anglais le regardèrent comme son agent secret.”—Histoire de France, vol iv. p. 175.—E.]

[105] See infra, p. 211.—E.

[106] Lord Mansfield, sitting by the Duke of Bedford in the House of Lords, said, if something vigorous was not done immediately, there would be a revolution in ten days, and the Government overturned,—yet when a motion was made against the riot, that dastardly magistrate sat still and did not utter a syllable.

[107] The Duke of Grafton states in his MS. Memoirs, on the authority of Mr. Bradshaw, who was present at the meeting, that with one exception the company “were for expelling Wilkes on the double ground of outlawry and conviction. Mr. Conway declared as much before he came away. The single exception was Mr. Hussey, who expressed himself strongly against a second expulsion for the same offence in being the author of a political libel, for he said that Wilkes’s conviction for the poem could not be thought of in the House of Commons without coupling it with the means used to obtain evidence against him.”—E.

[108] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 5–17. The disunion that prevailed among the Opposition, some treating the riots as most alarming, others as comparatively unimportant, gave the Government great advantage in the discussion. It may be inferred from the Duke of Grafton’s MS. Memoirs that the Government had been taken by surprise. He says, “It was extraordinary that this combination of the seamen was not foreseen by the merchants in a case wherein they were so much interested; for if the slightest information had reached the Admiralty, a few frigates and light vessels brought up the river would have easily supported the civil power in preventing any outrage.”—E.

[109] Mr. Harley was the fourth son of Edward, third Earl of Oxford. He had been bred a merchant, his father having succeeded to the title late in life through a collateral limitation on the death of the second Earl without male issue. His success in business, and his personal worth, and perhaps still more, his birth, made him a considerable person in the City. As a politician he seems to have given an unvarying and indiscriminate support to almost every Administration. In 1776 he had the good fortune to extricate himself from City politics by being elected Member for Herefordshire, where he had a large estate, and he continued to represent the county almost till the time of his death, at an advanced age, in 1804.—E.

[110] See Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 21–26. After Lord Barrington, as Secretary at War, had moved for leave to bring in the bill, Lord North said that he did not know whether he should or should not oppose the motion! On the second discussion, when the measure was virtually dropped, Lord Barrington assured the House that the bill did not proceed from any consultation of the Ministers, but from himself as a Minister of the Crown, and on that ground he protested against the Opposition claiming a triumph from its withdrawal,—a declaration that enabled Mr. Burke to say fairly enough that there could be no triumph over such weak and broken troops. If, however, the statement made by Lord Barrington was correct, it strengthens the suspicion elsewhere expressed in these notes that he acted on this as on other occasions at the King’s instigation. See p. [273].—E.

[111] Charles Wolfran Cornwall was of an ancient family in Herefordshire, being the son of Job Cornwall, a younger son of Charles Cornwall of Benington, to which estate Mr. Cornwall eventually succeeded. He was bred to the bar, but left it on his marriage. This was his first Parliament. He soon gained the ear of the House, and his name may be found in most debates of any importance even in this session. He had an agreeable address, and a neat clear persuasive style, which if it seldom rose to eloquence always ensured him attention, which he had the tact not to abuse by speaking at great length. He was exceedingly well informed, especially on all points of constitutional law. Notwithstanding his connection with Mr. Jenkinson, whose sister he had married, he joined in opposition to the Government, having attached himself to Lord Shelburne, who already aspired to be the patron of the rising talent of the day, and adopting the views of that nobleman, he distinguished himself by his speeches against the course pursued by the Ministers in their contest with Mr. Wilkes, and in their policy towards America. His speeches, as reported by Cavendish, are able, temperate, and manly. In 1774 he separated himself rather abruptly from his political friends by accepting a Lordship of the Treasury. In 1780 he was proposed by Lord North for the Speakership, to succeed Sir Fletcher Norton and elected without opposition. His acknowledged abilities and experience, with the advantages of a sonorous voice, a fine figure, and commanding deportment, seemed to give him every qualification for his office. For a time the public were not disappointed, but as his physical strength yielded to the fatigues of the long and constant sittings of that period, his reputation also declined, until it was wrecked in the furious party conflicts that succeeded the Coalition. If the frequent changes of Government rendered his position embarrassing, he aggravated these difficulties by his irresolution, so that all parties attacked him in turn. He certainly lost the consideration of the House, and from the suspicions entertained by Pitt of his bias towards Fox during the King’s illness, he would probably have been removed from the Chair at the next dissolution: but he was spared this blow. The following extract from Mr. Wilberforce’s diary is the only record that has come under my notice of the conclusion of his public and private life:—

“January 1st.—Last night the Speaker put off the House by a note in Warren’s handwriting, after he had sent word that he had passed a good night—we suspect a trick.

“January 2nd.—Cornwall the Speaker died after a short illness this morning. We had laughed at his indisposition the day before, thinking him be-Warrened.”—(Life of Wilberforce, i. 199.)

By a singular coincidence his predecessor in the Chair, Lord Grantley, died only the day before him. The Speaker left no children. He had sold the Benington estate some years before to Alderman Harley. (See more of him in Wraxall’s Posthumous Memoirs, vol. i. p. 53; vol. iii. p. 258.)—E.

[112] Captain the Hon. Constantine Phipps, R.N., M.P. for Lincoln, eldest son of Lord Mulgrave, a nephew of Lord Bristol. His knowledge of law could not have been very deep, considering that he was at this time barely twenty-two years old; still it was remarkable for a sailor, and he lost no opportunity of displaying it or indeed any of his other attainments, for he put himself forward in every debate of public interest with unwearied and systematic pertinacity. His speeches have gained him a place in history from their being almost the only records extant of some very important debates, and he deserves credit for the pains which, with a forethought then rare, he took in revising them for the press; but even with this advantage, they bear no traces of eloquence. He is said to have been a dull debater. There was little of animation or interest in his manner of expressing himself, and his deportment was as destitute of grace as his figure, the heavy colossal scale of which gained him the appellation of Ursa Major, to distinguish him from his younger brother, who had also a seat in the House. His voice also was particularly inharmonious. He had, indeed, two distinct voices,—the one strong and hoarse, the other weak and querulous, of both of which he occasionally availed himself. So extraordinary a circumstance probably gave rise to a story of his falling into a ditch on a dark night, and calling for aid in his shrill voice. A countryman coming up was about to have assisted him, but Captain Phipps addressing him in a hoarse tone, the man immediately exclaimed, “If there are two of you in the ditch you may help each other out of it.” His merit lay in his industry, information, and acuteness; these were indisputable, and made him a formidable opponent, especially as he was a man of great resolution. No superiority in talent or position could intimidate him, and it was with equal indifference that when almost a boy he used to provoke the patience of Lord North; and in maturer years he courted the indignation of Fox, then in the zenith of his fame. Notwithstanding his obligations to Lord Bristol, by whom his father had recently been raised to the peerage, he generally went with the popular party,—a line of conduct that would have gained him lasting honour, had he not afterwards accepted office under Lord North, and thenceforward supported the Government with the same zeal and vigour which he had previously shown in opposing it. His “tried integrity and worth” are sarcastically noticed in the Rolliad. After the fall of Lord North, he, in common with other friends of that Minister, joined Mr. Pitt. He proved an useful ally, especially in the debates on the Westminster scrutiny, in which he took a very active part, and thus brought upon himself the resentment and attacks of the Opposition wits, as well as a prominent place in the Rolliad. He was consoled, however, by the lucrative post of Joint-Paymaster, and a British peerage. Lord Mulgrave died in 1792. He is the author of “A Narrative of a Voyage of Observation and Discovery to the North Pole, in 1773,” a work of considerable merit. The expedition failed, owing to the ships getting entangled in the ice near Spitsbergen; but the philosophical observations made on the voyage received no addition during more than half a century afterwards.

Lord Mulgrave having died without issue, was succeeded in his Irish title by his brother Henry, whose career was at least equally successful, for he raised himself to the highest posts in the Government, as well as an English Earldom. The Marquis of Normanby is his eldest son.—E.

[113] He was the eldest son of Sir Henry Cavendish, Bart., of Doveridge Hall, Derbyshire, and afterwards had some lucrative offices in Ireland. His wife, the heiress of Mr. Bradshaw, was created Baroness in 1792. He died in 1804. It is to him that the public are indebted for the very interesting reports of the debates in Parliament, of which the first volume was published in 1841 by the late Mr. Wright,—an astonishing work for a man of his station, fortune, and pursuits, and incomparably the best—indeed the only faithful record of the proceedings in Parliament in the early part of this reign. It would have been far more valuable if he had taken the pains to give the words of the speakers in the passages of their speeches that were the most successful—his abridgment of course conveying a very imperfect and inadequate idea of any rhetorical excellence; hence, we rise from the perusal of his reports of Burke with some disappointment. Still, the work cannot be too carefully consulted by all who wish to gain an accurate insight into the history of the period which it embraces. One proof of Mr. (afterwards Sir Henry) Cavendish’s correctness is, that his reports of his own speeches go far to justify Walpole’s account of him.—E.

[114] Eldest son of Simon Lord Irnham, who had two other sons—Temple, who was a poet, and had parts, but proved a tedious orator; and the third, who was a seaman, and had most parts of the three. He had also two daughters, of whom Anne, the elder, then married to a Mr. Horton, was very engaging, and rose afterwards to a very extraordinary rank.

[115] This was very like his pitiful countryman James the First, who had disclaimed his own son-in-law, the King of Bohemia, when elected for their Prince by an oppressed nation.

[116] It is true Lord Granville had provoked the Genoese in the year 1743 by the treaty of Worms, in which he had proposed to force Final from the Genoese, and give it to the King of Sardinia. France had rescued Genoa from the Austrians. Still, there was no moral or political reason for our taking part for the Genoese against the Corsicans. The despotic principles of Lord Bute suggested that preference.

[117] The debate on the Adjournment is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 28–31. It turned chiefly on the disturbances among sailors.—E.

[118] In a letter on these proceedings written shortly before the judgment reversing the outlawry, Walpole says, “In short, my dear sir, I am trying to explain what I really do not understand.” (To Sir Horace Mann, vol. i. p. 392.) That he was not better informed at the date of these Memoirs, is proved by the statement in the text. It was, however, no disgrace to be ignorant of the absurd technicalities by which Lord Mansfield’s very able judgment is defaced; nor should they attach any stain to the memory of a judge who had to expound the law and not to make it. Lord Mansfield’s love of the prerogative did not in this instance lead him into the slightest injustice. Following the order which the form of the proceedings naturally suggested, he commenced with an elaborate and lucid examination of all the arguments which the ingenuity of the defendant’s counsel, arguing from the reversal of the outlawry, had most ably urged; and after carefully reviewing and combating each seriatim, he disposes of them in these words: “These are the errors which have been objected, and this the manner and form in which they are assigned. For the reasons I have given, I cannot allow them.” After a spirited vindication of his character, and a bold declaration of the utter indifference in which he held all the menaces by which he had been publicly and privately assailed, he proceeds to advert to a technical error in the “Writ of Exigent,” which by a series of precedents and cases ranging from the 7th of James the First to the 18th of Charles the Second (a period of sixty years), he shows to be fatal to the writ, and on that ground decides that the outlawry could not stand, adding at the conclusion of his judgment, “I beg to be understood that I ground my opinion singly upon the authority of the cases adjudged, which as they are on the favourable side, in a criminal case highly penal, I think ought not to be departed from.”—Burrow’s Reports, vol. iv. p. 2561.

The error upon which the reversal proceeded was, that after the words “at the County Court” the writ altogether omitted to state “of the County of Middlesex,” a ground obviously different from that which Walpole here suggests. It is observable, also, that the discovery of this error had not, as Walpole states, been made by Serjeant Glynn “two months before in his pleading;” it is probable, however, that Walpole may have confounded this with another error relied on by the Serjeant, but overruled by the court,—namely, that the averment “Brook Street near Holborn in the County of Middlesex” was not a sufficient averment that Brook Street was in Middlesex.

A clear account of these proceedings is given in the Life of Lord Mansfield (No. XI. of the Law Magazine), in an able and yet not servile defence by that eminent lawyer, who, with all his defects of character, will always be regarded as one of the brightest ornaments of British jurisprudence. It was written by Mr. Plunket, the author of a history of the Roman law, who has since died, a Puisne Judge of St. Lucia.—E.

[119] Mr. Townshend was the eldest son of the Hon. Thomas Townshend, second son of Charles, Viscount Townshend, and M.P. for Whitchurch. He prided himself on his family and fortune, and probably resented the preference shown to a political adventurer, such as Rigby. An additional motive for his resigning was his attachment to Lord Chatham, with whom he soon entered into violent opposition to the Government. He ranked high among the second-rate speakers in the House. The Whigs proposed him for the Chair against Sir Fletcher Norton, 1770, of course unsuccessfully. He was one of the Secretaries of State in Lord Shelburne’s Administration, and distinguished himself by a most able defence of the peace.—(Wraxall’s Historical Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 289.)—In 1783, the friendship of Mr. Pitt, with whom he had become connected by the marriage of his daughter with the second Lord Chatham, raised him to the peerage as Lord Sydney, and restored him the Seals of Secretary, which he held till 1789. He died in 1800. He was an accomplished classical scholar, and indefatigably industrious.—E.

[120] The Pope published a most satisfactory refutation of the claim of the French Government, but the French troops retained their conquest. A body of French troops under the Marquis de Rochecourt took possession of Avignon on the 11th of June. No resistance was offered by the papal authorities, the Legate only making a protest, accompanied by a declaration that the invaders had subjected themselves to the ecclesiastical penalties enumerated in the Bull In Cænâ Domini. The plea set up by the French was the invalidity of the original alienation of Avignon to the Pope by Jeanne of Naples in 1368. The Pope published a reply, which was thought conclusive by all but the French, who retained possession of the territory they had seized, until it suited their interests to resign it.—E.

[121] The Duke of Grafton states in his MS. Memoirs that Lord Rochford’s instructions only stopped short of a declaration of war. “At one time Lord Rochford was confident that he should have succeeded, and wrote over that the Duc de Choiseul’s language had so much softened, that he had every hope that the French Ambassador would not risk the attempt. In the audience of the next week, he found to his great surprise the former tone taken up; and in a private letter to me, he attributed the strange change in the Duc to the imprudent declaration of a great law Lord (Lord Mansfield), then at Paris, at one of the Minister’s tables, that the English Ministry were too weak, and the nation too wise, to support them in entering into a war for the sake of Corsica.” The remonstrances thus made by Lord Rochford having failed, the Duke of Grafton dispatched Captain Dunant, a Genevese officer, who had served with distinction in the Swiss troops of the King of Sardinia, to Corsica, with the view of learning how far assistance could be surreptitiously afforded to Paoli by the English Government, and the result of the mission was, that the Corsicans obtained several thousand stand of arms from the stock at the Tower. Lord Camden seems to have been ready to have gone further. The Duke of Grafton saw no necessity for an immediate decision, being under the impression that the Corsicans might still hold out; and the events which followed, and will be mentioned hereafter, took him completely by surprise. (Duke of Grafton’s MS. Memoirs.)—E.

[122] Almon says the sentence was condemned by everybody as unjustifiably severe. On the other hand, Mr. Grenville, in his celebrated speech against Lord Barrington’s motion for Wilkes’s expulsion, comments on it as very lenient, and contrasts it with Dr. Shebbeare’s, who for his Sixth Letter to the People of England was sentenced to be fined, to stand in the pillory, to be imprisoned for three years, and to give security for good behaviour for seven years. This, too, was whilst Mr. Pratt (afterwards Lord Camden) was Attorney-General. (Cavendish, vol. i. p. 160.)—E.

[123] The Archbishop could with little propriety have set on foot such a prosecution, having in the early part of his life exceeded Anet in the latitude of his irreligion. Whether he incited it or not, I do not know. It is justice to his character to say that he privately allowed Anet 50l. a-year to support him in prison, where he died. [This charge against the Archbishop also made by Walpole elsewhere, has been repeatedly refuted. It appears to rest on the very slender foundation of a foolish story told by some superannuated companion of Secker’s at Leyden, where the latter, in the fulness of his passion for metaphysics, probably indulged in paradoxes by way of argumentative exercises, which it would be very unjust to regard as his real opinion. Bishop Watson, when a student at Trinity, wrote a paper to refute Clarke’s main argument to prove the existence of God, yet no one ever thought of calling him an atheist.—E.]

[124] See supra, vol. i. p. 19. If Dr. Secker had not been the intimate friend of the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, his character would no doubt have obtained the warm praise instead of the constant abuse of Walpole. Bishop Hurd, who did not love him, says that he was a wise man, an edifying preacher, and an exemplary bishop.—(Life of Warburton, p. 69.)—He was very young when he left the Dissenters to join the Church, and the Dissenters never questioned the honesty of his change of opinions. Some of their most eminent writers have recorded their respect for him. The purity of his life brought on him the charge of hypocrisy from those alone who did not care to practise the same virtues. After enjoying for ten years the rich revenues of the primacy, he left an insignificant fortune, and his distribution of his patronage was equally disinterested. He was the last of the learned divines who have filled the highest dignities of the Church. (Life by Porteus, also Memoirs of Mrs. Carter, p. 402.)—E.

[125] Bishop Newton, after describing him as “the not unworthy successor of Secker,” says, “When he was a young man at the University he had the misfortune of a paralytic stroke on his right side, from which he has never recovered the full use of his right hand, and is obliged to write with his left; but, this notwithstanding, he has hitherto enjoyed uncommon good health, and never fails in his attendance on the multifarious business of his station. He has greatly improved Lambeth House, he keeps a hospitable and elegant table, has not a grain of pride in his composition, is easy of access, receives every one with affability and good nature, is courteous, obliging, condescending, and as a proof of it he has not often been made the subject of censure, even in this censorious age.”—(Memoirs, p. 121.)—This description might lead one to fear that the good Bishop’s standard of Metropolitan merit was not very elevated. Archbishop Cornwallis deserved still higher commendation. He seems to have had a true sense of his religious duties. When a party in the East India Company raised an outcry against the missionary Schwarts, then a friendless and obscure foreigner, he came forward with his public testimony on his behalf. The Archbishop died in 1783, aged 70.—E.

[126] The Count de Bernsdorffe was a Hanoverian. He had large estates in Mecklenburg, but had sought fortune in Denmark, where at that time foreigners were warmly welcomed, and raised to high posts. He had been Foreign Minister to Frederick the Sixth. His reputation and influence were considerable in the northern courts. Walpole describes him elsewhere (Letters to Sir H. Mann, vol. i. p. 400) as a grim old man, bowing and cringing at every word of the King with eastern obsequiousness—indeed a Mentor and Telemachus have never yet been seen in real life. Bernsdorffe died in 1772, aged sixty. His nephew, Count Andrew de Bernsdorffe, also an eminent name in the later history of Denmark, was Prime Minister in 1784, and died in 1797.—E.

[127] This piece of flattery was abruptly crushed. The poor King became on his return a mere phantom of royalty, first in the hands of his wife, next of the Queen Dowager. In 1784 his son was raised to the Regency, and succeeded to the Crown on his death, in 1808.—E.

[128] The Duke of Grafton’s Memoirs confirm Walpole’s account of this transaction, and he adds that “the Cabinet were unanimous in their resolution for the removal of Sir Jeffery Amherst.” It was in the manner of filling up the vacancy that they laid themselves open to the suspicion of having accommodated a private job under the pretence of reforming a public abuse, and people said, with some plausibility, “It was not Virginia that wanted a governor, but a Court favourite that wanted a salary.”—(See the clever letters in Woodfall’s Junius, vol. iii. pp. 89–123.)—Lord Bottetort’s being a follower and friend of Lord Bute, increased the cry against him.—E.

[129] The Hon. General John Fitzwilliam, had been Groom of the Bedchamber to William, Duke of Cumberland, when Mr. Conway was in the same post about his Royal Highness, and had long been intimate with Rigby. [He died in 1789, and left his fortune to one of his servants. He was uncle to Viscount Fitzwilliam (of Ireland), who founded the noble museum that bears his name at Cambridge; and on the death of whose brother the title became extinct.—E.]

[130] Afterwards the Right Hon. Sir William Lynch, K.B. He was the eldest son of Dr. Lynch, Dean of Canterbury, by the youngest daughter of Archbishop Wake. His family had long been settled at Groves, near Canterbury, and he represented that city in two Parliaments. He usually resided at Groves, where he had greatly embellished the house and park, and collected some fine pictures. He died abroad in 1785, leaving a widow, but no issue.—E.

[131] Lord Shelburne had been on very cold terms with the Duke of Grafton since the commencement of Lord Chatham’s illness. This coldness at length grew into absolute hostility; but it was at the instigation of the King, not less than of the Bedford party, that Lord Shelburne was removed; and such, indeed, was his alienation from his colleagues, that even the Chancellor acquiesced in the necessity of his removal, and, as the following letter shows, did not much regret it. “It does behove his Lordship (Lord Shelburne) either to be cordially reconciled or to resign, for it is neither just nor honourable to confound, much less to betray, an Administration while he remains a member of it. I should wish the first on many accounts, and yet I fear that can hardly be expected, considering what has passed, especially the last affront in setting aside his Lordship’s nomination to Turin.” (Letter from Lord Camden to Duke of Grafton, MS.) I can find no confirmation of the insinuation in Mr. Burke’s “Thoughts on Popular Discontents,” that Lord Shelburne’s removal was a punishment for the warmth of his representations to the French Court on the subject of Corsica. These representations, indeed, appear to have been fully sanctioned by the Duke of Grafton, and had they been disapproved by the Cabinet, Lord Rochford who so warmly urged them on the Duc de Choiseul would certainly not have been Lord Shelburne’s successor.—E.

[132] See Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 342.—E.

[133] Walpole had invariably entertained a mean opinion of Lord Rochford. In a letter as early as 1746, just after the battle of Culloden, he writes, “Is it news that Lord Rochford is an oaf? He has got a set of plate buttons for the birthday, with the Duke’s (of Cumberland) head on every one. Sure my good lady carries her art too far to make him so great a dupe!”—(Collected Letters, vol. ii. p. 165.) The plate buttons, however, were not thrown away, for Lord Rochford was within three years appointed Minister at Turin, and in 1755 he obtained the lucrative office of Groom of the Stole. The new reign obliged him to give way to Lord Bute, which he did with so good a grace, as to preserve the favour of the Court. Not satisfied with a large pension, he aspired to political eminence, and in 1763 accepted the embassy at Madrid. He discharged its duties respectably—was attentive to business—vigilant, and, when occasion called for it, spirited—and his dispatches present a more faithful and interesting account of the Court of Spain than is to be found in any cotemporary work. The credit he thus acquired was the cause of his being appointed Ambassador at Paris, where he conducted himself unexceptionably. It cannot, however, be said that he left a name of any distinction in diplomacy. The same mediocrity characterized his career as Secretary of State. He made a poor figure in the House of Lords, and if he had no enemies, he had as few friends. His colleagues shuffled him from one department to the other, and at last parted with him with an indifference that was fully shared by the public. Not, however, that he was unrewarded. He received for seven years the high salary, and enjoyed the patronage of the Secretary of State. He was Lord-Lieutenant of Essex, and a Privy Councillor. In 1778 he became a Knight of the Garter. His pecuniary circumstances, indeed, appear to have been embarrassed; but he is not to be pitied, if, as was reported, this arose from his speculations in the funds on the prospect of a Spanish war (Chatham Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 80). It has been observed that he is the only statesman whom Junius has noticed in terms of unqualified praise; but it should be remembered that this was only when writing under another signature,—no such praise is to be found in “the Letters of Junius.” Being succeeded by Lord Weymouth in 1775, he retired to St. Osyths, his seat in Essex—the ancient inheritance of the Rivers’s, from whom he was maternally descended. He died in 1781 without issue, and the title became extinct on the decease of his nephew.—(Coxe’s Kings of Spain, vol. iii.)—E.

[134] This correspondence between Lord Chatham and Lord Bristol has been published among Lord Chatham’s Letters (vol. iii. p. 347). Walpole’s personal dislike of Lord Bristol, which is little disguised in these Memoirs, could alone have made him regard that nobleman’s conduct in this transaction as in the slightest degree objectionable.—E.

[135] Instead of being deserted by these noblemen, it would be more fair to say that Lord Chatham had deserted them. There is no excuse for his conduct to Lord Bristol. His relation to Lord Camden was of a different character, for the latter was under deep obligations to him; but all intercourse between them had long been suspended, and their friendship had, from Lord Chatham’s fault alone, withered into a mere loose political connection. Still, the severance of that tie alarmed Lord Camden; and his letters to the Duke of Grafton, on receiving the first intelligence of Lord Chatham’s resignation, betray deep anxiety. He writes from Bath on the 14th of October, after expressing a faint hope that Lord Chatham’s resolution may not be final, “Your Grace and I feel for each other. To me I fear the blow is fatal, yet I shall come to no determination. If I can find out what is fit for me to do in this most distressed situation, that I must do; but the difficulty lies in forming a true judgment.... I do assure your Grace that my mind is at present in too great an agitation to be soon settled, and therefore I do not give myself leave to form an opinion concerning my own conduct.” On the 16th, he writes in the same strain: “Nothing could give me so much satisfaction as to join with your Grace in one line of conduct, and yet I plainly see that our situations are different, and the same honour, duty to the King, regard to the public, operating upon two minds equally aiming at the same end, may draw us different ways, but I dare say your Grace will believe me in all events and circumstances what I really am, with all respect and unfeigned attachment,” &c. The regard expressed in this note for the Duke of Grafton was perfectly sincere, and when they met in London Lord Camden yielded to the Duke’s solicitations. Various considerations united to bring him to this decision. He was not insensible to the advantages of office. He had made no provision for children whom he tenderly loved. One of these children happened at the time to be alarmingly ill. The King pressed him to remain. The country, whose welfare he identified with the political principles he professed, might suffer from his resignation. It was an error of judgment, for with the name of Lord Chatham the Cabinet lost the distinction that attached to Lord Chatham’s policy; and the small minority in which Lord Camden found himself, lingered on for a while, suspected by the country, thwarted by their colleagues, and discountenanced by the King, until the resignation to which they were driven had become a matter of comparative indifference to the different parties in the State.—E.

[136] The advantage of the Ministers lay in the disunion of their opponents—a fact which the speeches of Mr. Grenville and Mr. Burke, angry as each of them was with the Government, most palpably disclosed;—America, as before, being the subject of their differences. Mr. Grenville, however, disapproved of the dissolution of the American Assemblies, observing that “no corporation was bound to obey the orders of the Secretary of State further than they are enjoined by the laws of the land.” The picture he drew of the state of England is in dark colours. “Distress is among the common people; luxury among the rich; servility, licentiousness, venality, of a nature the most dangerous to the constitution; an enormous debt; a diminishing specie; an increasing paper credit.” Mr. Burke greatly overrated the importance of Corsica. “Corsica naked,” he observed, “I do not dread; but Corsica a province of France, is dreadful to me.”—(Cavendish, vol. i. p. 46.) This apprehension was very generally entertained,—time has proved it to be utterly unfounded, the French having up to this moment derived as little benefit from their conquest as has accrued to them from any of their ultramarine possessions.—E.

[137] As Wilkes was elected into the succeeding Parliament, and was allowed to sit, his expulsion at this time cannot be deemed a precedent to justify the expulsion of any man because he had been expelled by a former Parliament. No part of his expulsion can be turned into a precedent, unless on the argument that he was then a prisoner under sentence.

[138] The arguments for and against the expulsion of Wilkes are stated with neatness and force by Mr. Burke in the Annual Register for 1769.—E.

[139] Sir Joseph Mawbey had soon forgotten the favours of the Whigs:—

“Exulting that he was the first
Who Ministerial chains had burst,
And in the cause of liberty
Could keep his honours and be free.”

Rodondo.

He professed to be independent of party, and one of the results of this independence was, that the satirical poets of the day, Whig and Tory, united in pitilessly assailing him. He died in 1817.—E.

[140] See the debate in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 46–49.—E.

[141] It has been supposed that the great object of the Duc de Choiseul in encouraging Turkey to engage in war with Russia, was to procure the possession of Egypt for France as a reward for her interference. The Count de Vergennes had from the first predicted the issue of this unequal conflict. He in vain laid before the Duc the military incapacity of the Sultan Mustapha, the apathy of the Ministers, and the inefficiency of the Turkish levies. “I can arm the Turks against Russia,” he said, “whenever you desire, but I forewarn you that they will be beaten.”—Lacretelle, Histoire de France, vol. iv. p. 212.—E.

[142] It is deemed an etiquette in France (which must make other nations smile) that the most Christian King’s mistress must be a married woman.

[143] He also said maliciously enough, “I would not put in threats of a war in order to make the funds fall, nor would I fight a duel on every the slightest affront; but I do not care to receive one affront after another, lest I should be obliged to fight at last. In private life a man who seems doubtful about fighting is more likely to fight than any other.” The most interesting part of the debate is the discussion between Mr. Stanley and Mr. Grenville on the expediency of producing papers on a negotiation still pending. (Cavendish, p. 59, &c.)—E.

[144] The same attachment to liberty made him, in after years, the warm friend and supporter of Mr. Fox. He was indolent and reserved, or he might have played a great part in politics, for he possessed no common talents. He died in 1811.—E.

[145] This will be explained more fully hereafter.

[146] John West, second Earl of Delawar, died in 1777, aged forty-eight.—E.

[147] James, third Earl Waldegrave. He had married a sister of the Duchess of Bedford.

[148] Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort. [He held the office only until 1780. In 1786 he was made a Knight of the Garter. He died in 1803.—E.]

[149] The debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 61–8. This was one of the first steps towards that fatal entanglement in which the characters of so many public men suffered by their being drawn into a line of conduct contrary to their former professions, and their known political principles.—E.

[150] Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 168–75. Lord Barrington evidently wanted a vote of approbation to countenance his very injudicious letter; and judging from the tenor of his public life, as well as from the course pursued by the Ministers on this occasion, there is strong ground for suspecting that Lord Barrington had written the letter to please the King or even at his Majesty’s instigation.—See supra, p. 211.—E.

[151] Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 75–76.—E.

[152] Mr. Hopkins, of Oving House, near Aylesbury, M.P. for Great Bedwin. He was appointed Clerk of the Green Cloth, through the Duke’s interest. He left his estate to his nephew, General Northey, who thereupon took the name of Hopkins, and has died very recently.—E.

[153] Cavendish, vol. i. p. 77, &c.—E.

[154] Cavendish, vol. i. p. 100.—E.

[155] It was the same day put off to the 12th. (Cavendish, vol. i. p. 78.)—E.

[156] Chauncey Townshend. They were not related to Lord Townshend’s family. [Mr. James Townsend was at this time M.P. for West Looe. Lord Shelburne brought him in for Calne on Mr. Dunning’s elevation to the peerage, and he represented that borough till his death in 1787. He spoke at times with considerable effect in the House of Commons. One quality very requisite to the success of a popular leader he certainly possessed,—and that was, resolution; he showed it on all occasions. I have heard, on good authority, that a highway robbery having once been committed in his neighbourhood, he disguised himself as a countryman, and with his friend, the late Mr. Parker of Munden, in Hertfordshire, set out in search of the offender, and succeeded in overpowering and apprehending him. Mr. Parker used to dwell on the man’s ludicrous astonishment in discovering that his captors were gentlemen.—E.]

[157] Daughter of Sir Orlando Bridgman. His second wife was Miss Stevenson. She died a few weeks after the marriage.—E.

[158] Mr. John Sawbridge, of Olantigh, in Kent, grandson of Jacob Sawbridge, M.P., the South Sea Director. He was a man of strong understanding and upright principles. He is said to have had a coarse figure, and still coarser manners (Wraxall’s Posthumous Memoirs, vol. i. p. 105), but he did not want refinement of feeling. Highly as he prized the popular favour, he at once sacrificed it at the coalition, rather than abandon Mr. Fox. Wilkes, Townshend, and many of the leading Patriots were on this occasion found among the King’s friends; and Sawbridge, instead of being as usual at the head of the poll, saved his seat by only seven votes. He represented the City till his death in 1793. John S. W. Sawbridge Earle Drax, Esq., M.P. is his grandson and lineal representative.—E.

[159] Cavendish, vol. i. p. 100.—E.

[160] He was the eldest son of Lieutenant-General Richard Onslow, a younger brother of the Speaker, by Miss Walton, the niece and heiress of the gallant Admiral Sir George Walton. He succeeded his father as Member for Guilford in 1760, and continued to represent it until 1784. He died in 1792.—E.

[161] Sir Edward Deering, Bart., of Surrenden Deering in Kent, and one of the representatives of New Romney. He was an opulent and influential country gentleman. He died in 1798.—E.

[162] It was to excite the magistrates to do their duty against riots, promising them protection. It was interpreted as preparatory to a massacre.

[163] He was called with reason the petty tyrant of the North, and the stories still related of his pride, caprice, and cruelty in Westmoreland and Cumberland, are almost incredible. If he possessed a virtue, it was as Peter Pindar said, in his well-known epistle to him, “A farthing rushlight to a world of shade.” His eccentricities were such as to cast doubts on the sanity of his intellect. He fought several duels for causes ludicrously inadequate. This did not prevent his making an impassioned appeal to the House of Commons in 1780, on the duel of Lord Shelburne and Colonel Fullarton, against the impropriety of duels arising out of language in the House of Commons, as interrupting the freedom of debate. Mr. Pitt owed to him his first introduction into public life—as his first seat was for Sir James’s borough of Appleby,—a favour amply returned, by Sir James being raised in 1784 to the Earldom of Lonsdale. He was more useful than creditable as a political adherent. No man of his day spent such large sums in election contests, or obtained greater success in them, notwithstanding his extreme personal unpopularity. It is said that above seven thousand guineas were found in his cassette at his death in 1802, destined for the approaching general election,—a vast sum to collect in gold at a time when even at the Queen’s commerce-table guineas were very rarely staked, and when specie could scarcely be procured by men of the largest fortune. (See more of him in Wraxall’s Posthumous Memoirs, vol. i. p. 28.)—E.

[164] Wilkes proved himself wholly unworthy of Serjeant Glynn’s generous support. The King once related to Lord Eldon that on his saying to Wilkes at the levee that he was glad to see his friend Serjeant Glynn looking so well, Wilkes replied, “Sire, he is not my friend. He was a Wilkite, I never was.” (Twiss’s Life of Lord Eldon.)—E.

[165] Sir Francis Gosling was an eminent banker in Fleet Street, where his descendants still carry on business under the same firm.—E.

[166] I have seen genuine letters from the King to Mr. George Grenville, while the latter was Minister, which show how deeply his Majesty interested himself in that prosecution. In one he says, “Wilkes’s impudence is amazing, considering how near his ruin is.” (See the King’s letter to Lord North, p. 200, supra.)

[167] He had murdered a man in his own castle, where he always lived, and the affair had been winked at on supposition of his insanity, and perhaps from the difficulty of bringing to justice or of getting evidence against so great a lord in the centre of his dependants, and in so remote a country.

[168] Colonel, afterwards Sir John Stewart, Bart., of Grandtully. The marriage took place on the 10th of August, 1746. He died in 1764. It appears from the pleadings that when he married Lady Jane Douglas he was reduced in health, spirit, and circumstances, but was a man naturally of an ardent temperament, and had led a bustling dissipated life.—E.

[169] She was delivered of twins on the 10th of July, 1748, at Paris, in the house of Madame le Brun, in the Fauxbourg St. Germains, according to the evidence in the cause.—E.

[170] It should be observed, however, that in the judgments they delivered in the House of Lords, both Lord Camden and Lord Mansfield argue very strongly from Lady Jane’s conduct to her children that she was their mother.—E.

[171] This was the general impression. Lord Mansfield, on the contrary, was satisfied that the children in every way resembled Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane,—“the one was the finished model of Sir John, the other the exact picture in miniature of Lady Jane.” (See his Speech.)—E.

[172] The Douglas cause began in 1762. The judges in the Court of Session were divided—being seven to seven. The casting vote of the Lord President gave the decision to the Hamiltons. This judgment was reversed in the Lords on Feb. the 27th, 1769.—E.

[173] Lady Susan Stuart, daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and third wife of Earl Gower, was the intimate friend of the Duchess of Hamilton, and governing her in all other points, was very zealous for her in this cause, and had engaged the Bedford connection to support it.

[174] The speeches of Lord Mansfield and Lord Camden are to be found in the Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. p. 386, and Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 518. It is scarcely possible that the report of Lord Mansfield’s can be correct. It is equally poor both in composition and in argument; the main argument, indeed, being that a woman of Lady Jane’s illustrious descent could not be guilty of a fraud. The report contains none of the invectives against Andrew Stuart to which the text refers,—an omission which has been attributed to Lord Mansfield’s extreme caution or timidity,—and had no other effect than to encourage Mr. Stuart to attack him afterwards with greater fierceness; whilst against Lord Camden, whose speech was at least equally severe, he made no assault whatever.—(Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. iii. p. 195.) Lord Camden’s speech has been reported with unusual care, and is no doubt a fine specimen of judicial eloquence. Still, it does not fairly grapple with the difficulties of the case, and some of the strongest objections, too, in the way of the Douglas claim are left entirely untouched.—E.

[175] Mr. Johnstone Pulteney was the second son of Sir James Johnstone, Bart., of Westerhall, and brother of Governor Johnstone. He married the rich heiress and niece of Lord Bath, whose frugal habits he seems to have closely imitated. Wraxall says that his figure and dress answered Pope’s description of Sir John Cutler, his whole wardrobe being threadbare.—(Posthumous Memoirs, vol. iii. p. 280.) He died in 1805, at the age of eighty-four. His daughter was created Countess of Bath.—E.

[176] These letters are intituled “Letters to Lord Mansfield on the Douglas Cause, 1773,” 4to. They partly deserve the commendation bestowed on them by Walpole, and may still be read with almost unabated interest. Mr. Stuart had been a Writer of the Signet in Edinburgh. He was the proprietor of a fair estate called Torrence, in Lanarkshire, and for some years he represented the county in Parliament. In the Letters cited above, he calls himself “one whose birth entitles him, when provoked by injury, to feel no inferiority” to Lord Mansfield. The Appendix to his work contains letters to him from Charles Yorke, Dunning, Wedderburne, and Sir Adam Ferguson (who had all been of counsel for the Hamiltons), testifying to his honour in the conduct of the cause. It is difficult, nevertheless, to acquit him of very reprehensible tampering with the evidence. He wrote several tracts on Indian affairs, and likewise “A Genealogical History of the Stuarts, from the Earliest Period to the Present Time,” a work more curious than valuable. It led to some controversy long since forgotten. He died in 1801.—E.

[177] Without examining the records of France this fact cannot safely be altogether denied; but after many inquiries both among Scotch and English lawyers, the authenticity of it seems to rest with Walpole alone. Had it happened before Mr. Stuart’s Letters was published in 1773, of course he would never have omitted so important a fact; but neither in his Letters, nor in a French account of the Douglas cause published in 1786, nor in any other publication that has fallen in the editor’s way, is there the least notice of any such thing: besides this, nobody remembers even to have heard of it; and it is not a story likely to be forgotten, had it ever been mentioned.—E.

[178] He was the fifth son of the Earl of Shannon, [and M.P. for Knaresborough. He went out to the West Indies some years afterwards as Commodore, in the Thunderer, seventy-four, and perished with all his crew in the celebrated hurricane of 1779. He had married one of the daughters and co-heirs of Sir Charles Hanbury Williams.—E.]

[179] The trial is reported in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1768, p. 587; 1769, p. 51–53, 108. Certainly the execution of these men would have been an act of gross injustice.—E.

[180] Mr. Joseph Martin, M.P. for Gatton, an ancestor of the present Member for Tewkesbury.—E.

[181] The Petition from “the major part of the Council of Massachusets,” signed by Mr. Dunsford the President of the Council. Lord North contended that by the constitution of the colony the Council could not act separate from the Government except in their legislative capacity, and in that case the Governor was President of the Council. Owing to the recent dissolution, they could no longer act in their legislative capacity. The President, therefore, had no authority to sign in that character. (Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. p. 185.)—E.

[182] The resolutions had previously been passed by the Lords, and are given in Cavendish. They cite historically the acts both of the people and legislature of Massachusets, and they were accompanied by an address to the King, praying that he would direct the Governor of the colony to transmit the names of the persons most conspicuous in commencing illegal acts since the 2nd of December 1767 to one of the Secretaries of State, and would, if the information proved sufficient, issue a special commission for trying the offenders in Great Britain, according to the statute of the 35th of Henry the Eighth. The debate was conducted with ability and spirit on both sides of the House. Governor Johnstone tersely observed that the resolutions were untrue in point of fact, improper in point of language, and inexpedient in point of time. Mr. Grenville analysed them with his usual acuteness, and condemned the conduct of the Government as weak and inconsistent. He predicted the failure of all half measures. “If you mean,” he said, “to give up the proposition that you have a right to tax America, do it like men; if you do not mean to give it up, take some proper measures to show your intention; but do not stand hesitating between both,—if you do, you will plunge both countries into confusion.” Mr. Burke advocated the cause of the colonists with indignant eloquence. “Why,” he asked, “are the provisions of the statute of Henry the Eighth to be put in force against the Americans? Because you cannot trust a jury of that country. Sir, that word must carry horror to every feeling mind. If you have not a party among two millions of people, you must either change your plan of government, or renounce your colonies for ever.” Governor Pownall delivered a treatise full of information, which he took care should be accurately reported, and it has accordingly had more readers than it is likely to have found hearers. The resolutions were defended by Hussy, with judgment, good taste, and ability. Nor was Lord North deficient in making a plausible case for the Government. The House was as thin as when it passed the Stamp Act. (Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 191–225.)—E.

[183] The Speaker decided this to be an improper expression.—E.

[184] Alluding to the Paymaster’s place, which had been split into two, but was again given to Rigby alone.

[185] This debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 120–8.—E.

[186] Cavendish, vol. i. p. 128–31.—E.

[187] This surely was more disgraceful to the Prince than to Sir Laurence Dundas; but the Prince would no doubt have hanged, and with more reason, Lord George Sackville, if he had dared, and this did not obstruct that nobleman’s promotion.—E.

[188] Author of the Commentaries on the Law. He was a very uninteresting speaker, and was afterwards made a judge. [His principles being strongly Tory, drove him into a line of conduct on Wilkes’s affair unlike the rest of his life, for in other respects he showed himself an honest, able, and amiable man. He probably regretted his subserviency to the directions of the Ministers, for he refused the office of Solicitor on Dunning’s retirement, and was delighted to be raised on the following year to one of the Judgeships of the Common Pleas, which he held till his death, in 1780. An interesting life of him is prefixed to his Reports.—E.]

[189] Mr. (afterwards Sir Ralph) Payne, (K.B.,) M.P. for Shaftesbury. He seems to have soon discovered his failure, for in 1771 he accepted the government of the Leeward Islands, where he possessed a considerable estate, an ancestor of his having settled in Antigua during the civil wars. His splendid hospitality and imposing deportment, not less than his good nature, made him very popular with the West Indians, and it was to their great regret that he returned to England in 1775 to resume his political career. This, however, proved far from successful. All he obtained was the Clerkship of the Green Cloth, which he subsequently lost in consequence of his connecting himself with Fox. His house, however, became the favourite resort of the leaders of the Opposition, partly from his own agreeableness, and more so from the attractions of his wife, a highly accomplished Austrian lady, who was a very general favourite. It was on seeing her in tears, which she placed with more adroitness than truth to the account of her monkey, who had just died, that Sheridan wrote the well-known ludicrous distich:—

“Alas! poor Ned,
My monkey’s dead;
I had rather by half
It had been Sir Ralph.”

In 1795 Sir Ralph made his peace with Pitt, and was raised to the Irish peerage by the title of Lord Lavington. In 1801 he returned to his former government, and in 1807 died at Antigua, without issue. Lady Lavington survived him, and was left in circumstances so embarrassed, that she applied to the legislature of Antigua for a small pension. (See more of him in a work recently published under the title of “Antigua and the Antiguans.”)—E.

[190] This debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 131–8.—E.

[191] Secretary of the Treasury.

[192] Dr. Blackstone spoke with unusual spirit, and put the case on the right grounds. Serjeant Glynn observed sensibly and fairly, “If the letter is not entirely free from all possibility of reprehension, there does not appear to be anything in it to subject the noble writer to Parliamentary censure, but I think it calculated to induce magistrates to exercise a power which ought not to be resorted to except in extreme cases. It does not sufficiently define the occasions upon which it is to be used. Most of the magistrates are uninstructed in the laws of the country, and likely to be misled by the terms of it.” (Cavendish, vol. i. p. 139–151.)—E.

[193] A noted partisan of Wilkes.

[194] The Ministers made a very poor figure in this debate, if any trust is to be placed in Cavendish’s Reports. Dyson seems to have acquitted himself the best. The temper of the majority may be inferred from the applause said to have been received by Mr. (afterwards Justice) Nares, on his declaring that he would “rather appear in that House as an idolater of a Minister, than as a ridiculer of his Maker.” On the Opposition side there was no speech like Mr. Grenville’s. He revised the report of it taken by Cavendish; and printed a few copies for private circulation, by which means it came into the hands of Almon, who reprinted it (Parliamentary Debates, vol. xvi. pp. 546–575). Being one of the very few of his speeches that have been preserved, it deserves the attentive study of those who desire to know how he obtained the ascendancy which he so long enjoyed in the House of Commons, combating as he did, at one time, almost alone, the extraordinary and varied powers of Pitt and Charles Townshend. It is plain that, to use an expression of Clarendon respecting Mr. Pym, whom, by the way, in many respects he closely resembled, “his parts were rather acquired by industry, than supplied by nature or adorned by art.” This he well knew, and accordingly it was not his aim to subdue the feelings or to captivate the imagination; he sought to reach the understanding, and certainly the able structure of his argument—the precision with which his points are laid down—his great power of exposition,—and above all, the abundant stores of knowledge which he always brought to the discussion, show how he excelled in the line he had adopted. This speech remained unanswered, and was indeed unanswerable. In some parts it approaches eloquence, but it can only be fairly estimated as a whole,—no extracts would furnish a just idea of its merit. The following passages, however, may be taken as a fair specimen of his style:—

“Are these, then, the proper expedients to check and to restrain the spirit of faction and of disorder, and to bring back the minds of men to a sense of their duty? Can we seriously think that they will have that effect? Surely it is time to look forward and to try other measures. A wise Government knows how to enforce with temper, or to conciliate with dignity; but a weak one is odious in the former, and contemptible in the latter. How many arguments have we heard from the Administration in the course of the session, for conciliatory measures towards subjects in the American colonies upon questions where the legislative authority of Great Britain was immediately concerned? And is not the same temper, the same spirit of conciliation, at least equally necessary towards the subjects within the kingdom? or is this the only part of the King’s dominions where it is not advisable to show it? Let not any gentleman think that by conciliation I mean a blind and base compliance with popular opinions contrary to our honour and justice—that would indeed be unworthy of us. I mean by conciliation a cool and temperate conduct unmixed with passion or prejudice. No man wishes more than I do to stop any excess on either side, or is more ready to resist any tumultuous violence founded upon unreasonable clamour. Such a clamour is no more than a sudden gust of wind that passes by and is forgotten; but when the public discontent is founded on truth and reason, when the sky lowers and hangs heavy all around us, a storm may then arise which may tear up the constitution by the roots, and shake the palace of the King himself.” (Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. p. 174.) Mr. Grenville took care throughout his speech to prevent his opinion against Mr. Wilkes’s expulsion being construed into approbation of that gentleman’s conduct, on which he commented with a severity which the latter deeply resented. Lord Temple interfered, but could not prevent Wilkes from publishing an insolent pamphlet in reply to Mr. Grenville’s observations, the result of which was, that Lord Temple never spoke to him afterwards.—E.

[195] Charles, second Earl Cornwallis. [He was the intimate friend of the Duke of Grafton. A pleasing portrait is drawn of him by all contemporary writers. If the failure of his American campaigns, where he certainly proved no match for the self-taught commanders, whose ignorance it was the fashion of the day to ridicule, raised a strong presumption against his military talents, he met with great success in India, both as a soldier and an administrator. His conduct in Ireland during the Rebellion likewise does honour to his sagacity and benevolence. He was one of the few statesmen who inculcated the necessity of forbearance and concession in that misgoverned country,—and the coldness with which the Ministers received his remonstrances was the cause of his resignation. The mild dignity of his demeanour faithfully represented the leading traits of his character. He died in India in 1805, at a very advanced age, leaving an only son, on whose decease, without male issue, the Marquisate became extinct.—E.]

[196] Mr. Stephenson was the son of Sir William Stephenson of Kent. I have been told that later in life he met with great losses in trade, which obliged him to make a composition with his creditors, but having subsequently retrieved his circumstances he paid everything in full.—E.

[197] Mr. Hollis published handsome editions of Toland’s Life of Milton, and Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government,—works of which the principles, political and religious, coincided with his own. He was a very honest well-meaning man, the idol of a small circle of friends, who profited largely by his bounty, and showed their gratitude by extravagant praises of his moral and intellectual merit. He died suddenly from apoplexy at his seat at Corscombe, in Dorsetshire, in 1764. An injudicious tribute was paid to his memory by the publication of his Life in two massive volumes, 4to, by Archdeacon Blackburne, in 1780—one of the dullest books of the day—and which as completely failed in its object as some of the biographies of the same cast, the introduction of which into the Biographia Britannica, drew forth the well-known lines of Cowper—

“O fond attempt to give a deathless lot
To names ignoble, born to be forgot!
In vain recorded in historic page,
They court the notice of a future age.
Those twinkling tiny lustres of the land,
Drop one by one from Fame’s neglecting hand;
Lethæan gulp receives them as they fall,
And dark oblivion soon absorbs them all.”—E.

[198] Henry Seymour, nephew of Edward eighth Duke of Somerset, and half-brother by the mother to Lord Sandwich, but attached to Grenville. [He was M.P. for Huntingdon.—E.]

[199] Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol i. p. 226.—E.

[200] This tract was understood to be written by Mr. Knox. It is but a moderate performance, and has long ceased to be read, except by those who wish to appreciate Mr. Burke’s admirable “Observations.” There are some passages in it exactly in Mr. Grenville’s manner, and probably of his composition: the sentiments of the whole were certainly his. Another tract of a similar tendency had, not long before, issued from the same mint, intituled “Considerations on Trade and Finance.”—E.

[201] This brilliant composition has so many beauties, and excites throughout such deep interest, that it seems to be almost an abuse of criticism to note its defects. The author, of course, wrote under a strong bias, and for a temporary purpose; but his genius has cast a halo over his opinions and his political associates, which has enlisted posterity on his side.

The passage to which Walpole refers is in reply to some gloomy statements of the decline of our trade.—“What if all he says of the state of this balance were true? If these [custom-house entries] prove us to be ruined, we were always ruined. Some ravens, indeed, have always croaked out this kind of song. They have a malignant delight in presaging mischief, when they are not employed in doing it. They are miserable and disappointed at every instance of the public prosperity. They overlook us, like the malevolent being of the poet,—

“‘Tritonida conspicit arcem
Ingeniis, opibusque, et festâ pace viventem,
Vixque tenet lachrymas quia nil lachrymabile cernit.’”—E.

[202] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 227–237.—E.

[203] It would have been a wiser course in the Ministers not to have resorted to this expedient, which at least was open to strong suspicion. Mr. Burke thus comments upon it: “After a jury upon legal evidence have given their verdict, a court of judicature has determined, the judges have approved, and the party is under sentence, the mercy of the Crown interposes; ‘No, no,’ say the Government, ‘we must have a jury of surgeons—of that kind of judicature we must avail ourselves,’ and the man receives the royal pardon. When they witness these things the unfortunate people of England say, We are not seditious without reason,” &c.—(Speech on Mr. Onslow’s motion for declaring Colonel Lutterell duly elected for Middlesex, in Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. p. 382.)—See also Junius’s Letters, vol. i. p. 50.—E.

[204] The bill was passed by the Lords without opposition, the Duke of Grafton alone saying that he thought it a very bad bill.

[205] The debate is well reported in Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 241–51.—E.

[206] Lord Clive endeavoured to prove the agreement to be unjust towards the Company—an opinion in which Mr. Grenville seems to have concurred, but “four or five hundred thousand pounds was a bait too tempting to be rejected,” and he therefore gave no objection to the motion. Colonel Barré denounced with his usual vigour the constitution of the Company. After referring to the sentiment he had expressed in a former debate, that the management of a dominion containing sixteen millions of inhabitants, and producing a revenue of from four to eight millions a-year, could not be wisely and safely managed by twenty-four gentlemen in Leadenhall Street, he proceeded to say, “The system of direction, fluctuating as it does from year to year, must be ruinous. Faction, too, that has stolen into almost every public assembly, has found its way among them; at one time making a disadvantageous peace, at another time making one on more advantageous terms; striking out new wars; not content with the revenues which they already have, but thirsting for more,—it is impossible but India must be a scene of confusion. Instead of this, you might, by the wisdom of your laws and the sagacity of your government, bring millions lying hid in the earth into this country, and at the same time snatch the people of India from the tyranny under which they have been accustomed to live. But instead of this, there is nothing but war from the Carnatic to the Deccan.” Mr. Burke appeared as the advocate of the Company, and defended the annual election of Directors, as a system under which the Company had prospered. “Men,” he observed, “continually watched by their constituents are worked into vigour. If the Direction were established for a number of years, the Directors might form themselves into cabals.” (Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. pp. 251–65.)—E.

[207] It is remarkable that Walpole should overlook the violent altercation which occurred in this debate between General Conway and Mr. Burke,—in which, as far as can be collected from Cavendish, the latter had the advantage.—E.

[208] In these debates on the Civil List very able speeches appear to have been made by Lord North, Mr. Grenville, Mr. Dowdeswell, and Mr. Burke. An instructive account of them is given by Cavendish, though it is evident that he has failed in his attempt to convey an adequate representation of the brilliant eloquence of Burke. The rapidity of Burke’s utterance, and the late period of the debate in which he spoke, perhaps made this impracticable. He has done more justice to Lord North, whose defence of his political conduct is so illustrative of his general views, and of the course he pursued in Parliament, that I have ventured, notwithstanding its length, to insert it here.

“Those repeated changes of Administration have been the principal cause of the present grievance [the King’s debts]. I lament it as much as any man can do. Under an Administration, whose principles I approved, ten years ago I accepted a small office, and was contented with it; those whom I served knew I never molested them on my own account. I had formed principles from which I have never deviated,—principles not at all calculated for an ambitious man. I thought the public had waged a glorious war; and that the war would be concluded by a necessary peace. It was never my idea to cry up the peace as the chef-d’œuvre of a great minister. The peace was an advantageous one; because, in the situation in which the country then stood, it was better to come to such a peace, than to run the risk of another campaign. If the Ministers had no other choice, they made a good choice; if the case was otherwise, they made a bad one. Whether they had or had not, never came to my ears. I never considered the country so reduced that we could not recover. A steady manly resistance of the impatience of those who wanted to ease themselves of the burdens left by the war, put the country at length into a situation to meet other wars. Upon this system I have ever been against popular measures. I do not dislike popularity; but for the last seven years I have never given my vote for any one of the popular measures. I supported the Cyder-tax with a view to the ease of the people, and I afterwards opposed the repeal of the tax—a vote of which I never repented. In 1765, I was for the American Stamp Act; the propriety of passing which I took very much upon the authority of the right honourable gentleman; and when, in the following year, a bill was brought in for the repeal of that act, I directly opposed it; for I saw the danger of the repeal. And when, again, in the year 1767, it was thought necessary to relieve the people from the pressure of taxation, by lessening the revenue to the extent of half a million, I was against that measure also. There appeared on the public stage a strange phenomenon—an individual grown, by the popularity of the times, to be a man of consequence. I moved the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes. Every subsequent proceeding against that man I have supported; and I will again vote for his expulsion, if he again attempts to take his seat in this House. In all my memory, therefore, I do not recollect a single popular measure I ever voted for—no, not even the Nullum Tempus Bill. I was against declaring the law in the case of general warrants. I state this to prove that I am not an ambitious man. Men may be popular without being ambitious; but there is rarely an ambitious man who does not try to be popular.” (Cavendish, vol. i. p. 298.)—E.

[209] See some able comments on this question in Burke’s celebrated tract on “Present Discontents,” (Works, vol. ii. p. 309.)—E.

[210] Cavendish, vol. i. pp. 307–336. Especially the speeches of Lord North, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Grenville.—E.

[211] Dingley was a strange eccentric creature, always bent on some wild scheme or other. He had obtained a patent for a newly-invented sawing machine, which he carried on at Limehouse; and various other projects of his are mentioned in the Annual Register. Junius states that he died of a broken heart in consequence of having been so contemptuously treated at this election. He was a man of some property, and had been Lord Chatham’s landlord when the latter resided at Hampstead. An amusing account of him is given in a note to Chatham’s Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 350.—E.

[212] This debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 345–355.—E.

[213] Yet it had been mentioned that very morning in the newspapers as intended.

[214] Evelyn Pierpoint, the last Duke of Kingston, K.G. He was then just married to the famous Miss Chudleigh—a marriage afterwards disallowed by the House of Lords. [The Duke was the only son of Lord Newark, only son of the second Duke of Kingston. His father died at the early age of twenty-one, and he had the misfortune to be brought up by his grandfather, a haughty, selfish, licentious man, who appears to have been equally a tyrant in his family and out of it. Thus he became bashful and dull, and displayed few if any of the talents which had characterized his race, and were so evident in his aunts, Lady Mary Wortley Montague and Lady Mar. He raised a regiment in 1745, which is often mentioned in the history of that campaign as Kingston’s light horse, and, what was not then common with Peers, he served with it. He died at Bath in September 1773. His widow survived him till 1788, when she died at Paris, aged sixty-eight.—E.]

[215] Lord Irnham, on a family quarrel, afterwards challenged his son to fight.

[216] The date of the first letter published by Junius is the 21st of January.—E.

[217] Mr. Grenville spoke twice in this debate. Early on Saturday he was called up by an observation of Mr. Onslow that Alderman Beckford was not at liberty to reason against a resolution of the House of Commons. “Sir,” said he, in a tone exceedingly animated, “he who will contend that a resolution of the House of Commons is the law of the land, is a violent enemy of his country, be he who or what he will. The law of the land, an Act of Parliament, is to be the guide of every man in the kingdom. No power—not an order of the House of Commons can set that aside, can change, diminish, or augment it. I do say, and I will maintain that ground—let any gentleman call me to order—that the law of the land, an Act of Parliament, cannot be altered, enforced, or augmented by a vote of either House of Parliament. That I say is the law of this country.” Immediately after this speech Mr. Grenville spat blood.—(Cavendish, vol. i. p. 370.)

At a later period of the evening Mr. Grenville entered fully into the questions of the House, and discussed with great ability the celebrated cases of Ashby v. White, and Rex v. Lord Banbury, where in the former instance the decision of the House of Commons, and in the latter of the House of Lords, had not been recognised by the courts of law.—E.

[218] The debate in reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 360–86.—E.

[219] Lord North is stated by Cavendish to have withheld his consent to the course recommended by Conway, on the ground that it would not be justifiable to convey to the Americans the idea of a repeal of the Act so long as there was a possibility of their being disappointed. The best speeches on this debate were those of Edmund Burke and his cousin William, both being clever and animated. (Cavendish, vol. i. p. 390–401.)—E.

[220] Serjeant Whitaker was also counsel against Wilkes in the action against Lord Halifax tried in the Common Pleas in the following November. His speech, on that occasion, is reported in the London Museum for 1769. It possessed sufficient interest at the time to cause his style of speaking to be burlesqued in Foote’s Comedy of the “Lame Lover.” His name does not often occur in the reports. He had been made King’s Serjeant in 1759, and afterwards became Treasurer of his Inn. He died of apoplexy in 1779.—E.

[221] Afterwards the Right Hon. Sir James Graham, one of the Barons of the Exchequer. He died in 1836, at the great age of ninety-two. He believed himself to belong to the Montrose family. It is more certain that he was the son of a schoolmaster at Hackney. His personal accomplishments and amiability made him a general favourite throughout life, which perhaps prevented his attaining any considerable reputation as a lawyer.—E.

[222] The ability displayed by Serjeant Adair on this occasion obtained him the patronage of the Duke of Portland, who afterwards brought him into Parliament. He spoke there occasionally, and distinguished himself in the debates on the slave-trade. He was without any vivacity of manner or expression, but had the reputation of being a sound lawyer, and it may be perceived by the reports that his business in the Common Pleas was considerable. He was a staunch Whig; it therefore became a subject of the deepest mortification to him that Mr. Erskine should have been brought from the King’s Bench to lead in the great case of Mr. Fox against the High Bailiff of Westminster. Mr. Fox, who highly esteemed him, perhaps was not less distressed, but the matter was too important to be ruled by personal feelings. The Mr. Adair whose name appears in the reports of the trial as the junior counsel, was not the Serjeant, but a young barrister, who has since obtained a place in history, by his eminence in diplomacy and his friendship with Mr. Fox—the Right Hon. Sir Robert Adair, G.C.B. The Serjeant died suddenly in 1798. His daughter married the late Judge Wilson. He succeeded Glynn as Recorder, and held that office for ten years.—E.

[223] John Lee, or, as he was usually termed, “honest Jack Lee,” was a sound lawyer, and for many years had the lead on the Northern Circuit, where his practice was very considerable. He excelled, Lord Eldon has recorded, in cross-examination. A brief blunt way of expressing himself, much originality, and frequent sallies of a wit, which, though not of an elevated character, was very amusing, gave him a short-lived celebrity. He was appointed Solicitor-General by the Coalition. In the great debate of the 17th Feb. 1783, on Lord Shelburne’s Peace, he took a prominent and not very judicious part. He succeeded Wallace as Attorney-General in the March following; and in April 1793, he died at Staindrop, in the county of Durham—leaving, it was said, a great estate.—E.

[224] Mr. Grenville cited from Blackstone’s Commentaries B. C. the passage enumerating the nine cases of disqualification (of which cases expulsion was not one), and ending—“but subject to the standing restrictions and disqualifications, every subject is eligible of common right.” In the editions, subsequent to Wilkes’s case, the sentence goes on, “though there are instances where persons, in particular circumstances, have forfeited that common right and been declared ineligible for that Parliament by a vote of the House of Commons, or for ever by an Act of the Legislature.” (Commons’ Journal, 17th Feb. 1769.)—This difference in the two editions, led to the favourite toast at political meetings of “The first edition of Doctor Blackstone’s Commentaries.” Mr. Grenville’s speech is given by Cavendish, vol. i., where, however, it is not so severe or powerful as the accounts of it in Walpole and Junius (Letter xviii.) would lead one to expect.—E.

[225] The Cardinal was drawn from the obscurity in which he had lived since his disgrace in 1758, for the purpose of this mission. He continued Ambassador at Rome until his death, in 1794, in his eighty-fifth year. A memoir of him, by the Abbé Feletz, of the French Academy, forms one of the best-written articles in the Biographie Universelle. It would be more valuable if it were less of an éloge. The Cardinal judged wisely in opposing the Austrian alliance: but like other French statesmen, he took care to make his opposition subservient to his interest. Indeed there is little either in his moral or political conduct to deserve commendation until he was securely settled at Rome. He owed his elevation entirely to Madame de Pompadour, whose favour he had earned by betraying to her the King’s intrigue with Madame de Choiseul—a secret with which that lady had imprudently intrusted him.—(See more of him in the Memoires de Duclos, vol. ii. p. 172; Lacretelle’s Histoire de France, vol. iii. p. 161.)—E.

[226] The disapprobation with which Ganganelli was known to regard the policy of the Jesuits procured him the support of France and Austria, and consequently his election. It was not, however, until the year 1773 that he issued the brief for the extinction of the order. The troubles in which this step involved him shortened his life. His advanced age, for he was sixty-nine years old, the cares of Government, and his sedentary studious habits, were held insufficient causes for his death, without adding it to the catalogue of the crimes of the Jesuits; and volumes were written to support and to repel the charge.—E.

[227] The Count du Châtelet, afterwards Duc, has been mentioned with respect by the French historians of the day, and his name is associated with more important transactions than this miserable affair. The King’s esteem raised him to the command of the guards on the death of the Duc de Biron. In common with other enlightened men attached to the Court, he supported the reforms best calculated to ameliorate the condition of the people. His popularity caused him to be fixed on as a successor to Brienne in the Presidentship of the Council,—a dangerous honour, which he wisely declined. He was, however, one of the early victims of the Reign of Terror, and after a fruitless attempt to commit suicide, perished by the guillotine on the 13th of December, 1793. His wife soon followed him to the scaffold.—E.

[228] It was believed that he had acted under secret instructions from the Empress; although, in conformity with the practice of the Russian Court, he was left to bear the blame of failure. On his return to St. Petersburg he was placed at the head of the marine department, and held that post during several years, with a very poor reputation. He escaped dismissal only because Catherine made it a principle to change as seldom as possible either her Ministers or Ambassadors.—(Tooke’s Life of Catherine the Second, vol. i. p. 304; vol ii. p. 46.)—E.

[229] Circulars were addressed by Lord Rochford to the British Ministers at foreign Courts with an account of this transaction.—(See letter to Sir A. Mitchell, in Ellis’s Original Letters, vol. iv. p. 521.)—E.

[230] A minute of Lord Chatham’s representations to the King is given in the Duke of Grafton’s Memoirs, as if on his Majesty’s authority. It confirms the statement in the text, with the addition, however, of Lord Chatham having assured the King that in his state of health office could no longer be even desirable to him.—E.

[231] Being asked soon afterwards, by Sir W. Meredith, if he was likely to come in, he replied, “Good God! I!—with whom, and for whom?” There would have been great sense in this answer, if he had not often shown that he was indifferent with whom, and nobody could tell for whom he had ever come in: though his enemies would say, only for himself; and Britain ought to say for her in his successful Administration.

[232] Lord Temple, too, as if not without hopes, had shifted off to September the meeting in Buckinghamshire for determining whether that county should petition or not; and he might hope that the popular clamour would drive the Court to have recourse to Lord Chatham and him.

[233] Edward Harvey. M.P. for Harwich, Governor of Portsmouth, and Adjutant-General of the Forces. He bore a very high reputation in the army, having served with great distinction on the Staff during the seven years’ war. Prince Ferdinand frequently employed him on missions to England, when there was any important military business to transact, and he seems to have been equally in the confidence of the Prince and the English Government. The King also entertained a warm regard for him, and took much pleasure in his society; no one perhaps being more constantly his Majesty’s attendant in his rides. On one occasion, when they were riding together in a heavy shower of rain, the General having no great-coat, the King lent him his own. The difficulty then arose whether it was to be returned or not. At length the General decided on returning it. The King remarked, “You have sent back my great-coat, I see.” “Please your Majesty,” was the reply, “I could not presume to offer a new one.” “Quite right, quite right,” rejoined the King; “there may as well be two good men in the coat as one.” The General usually resided at Blackheath. He died on April the 16th, 1778. He was the brother of Mr. William Harvey of Chigwell, and uncle of the late Admiral Sir Eliab Harvey, G.C.B.—E.

[234] If these Memoirs had been written at a later period, Walpole would have mentioned Horne Tooke’s talents with more respect. He was, however, at this time little known, except for his quarrel with Wilkes, when, as Lord Brougham justly observes, “though he was clearly in the right, he became the object of general and fierce popular indignation, for daring to combat the worthless idol of the mob.”—(Sketches of British Statesmen, vol. ii. p. 119.)—E.

[235] Son of the late Speaker. He became Lord Onslow by the death of his cousin in 1776, was created Earl Onslow in 1801, and died in 1814. He had lived on terms of great intimacy with Wilkes, whom, in a letter printed by Almon, he praises with the warmth of a partisan.—(See Life of Wilkes, vol. v. p. 240.)—E.

[236] The trial terminated in Mr. Onslow’s nonsuit, in consequence of the word pounds being inserted in the record instead of the word pound. The case was re-heard at Guildhall, when Mr. Onslow was again nonsuited. The trial was supposed to have cost him 1500l. The whole transaction was most discreditable to Mr. Horne.—(Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 196.)—E.

[237] The Duke gives some account, in his plain simple style, of these brutal outrages in his Journal.—(Cavendish, vol. i. p. 621.)—He appears to have had a narrow escape of being murdered at Honiton. It is pleasing to find in his entry of the following day, a picture presenting a striking contrast to this disgraceful tumult:—“I went in the morning to Barwick Place, where my ancestors lived, in Dorsetshire. It is a fine farm, but a dismal place. From thence I went by the sea-side through Kingston Russell farm, to Mr. Hardy, my tenant’s house, where I dined. This is an exceeding fine farm, and has the finest ewe leasows I ever saw in my life. After a very good farmer-like dinner, and a hearty welcome, I set out for Blandford.”—E.

[238] He had, moreover, at his seat at Kingsgate, in the Isle of Thanet, erected a pillar to the honour of Alderman Harley, the most unpopular of all the City’s magistrates.

[239] These accounts were not settled at Lord Holland’s death, and his family profited of the interest of 400,000l. still remaining in his hands. Lord North was very earnest to have the account made up, and yet it was not finally closed in the middle of the year 1777, which shows the intricacy and difficulty of terminating such accounts. [The delay was no fault of Lord Holland’s; it arose from the imperfect system of auditing the public accounts in that day. Lord Holland had been out of office only three years and a-half. Mr. Winnington’s accounts for 1744–6 were only settled in 1760, or fourteen years after their close, and Lord Chatham’s remained open for the same period.—(Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. iii. p. 136.)—It should, however, be stated, in fairness to Lord Chatham, that he derived no benefit from the balance in his favour, having left all his receipts in the Bank of England.—(See Lord Holland’s Memorial, and other papers arising out of this accusation in the notes to Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 184.)—E.]

[240] Lord Chatham, Lord Temple, and Mr. Grenville. A petition from Ailesbury being soon after agreed on, the members of the meeting drank a health to the union of the three brothers. How little union there really was amongst them appeared afterwards, for Mr. Grenville had before his death made his peace with the Court without any consideration of Lord Chatham, and so did Lord Temple in like manner in 1777. All the latter part of Lord Temple’s life was one continued scene of quarrels and reconciliations with his family and friends, according as his passions or restless ambition dictated.—(See the MS. Memoirs of the Duke of Grafton, Appendix, on the subject of these petitions.)

[241] Letter to the Duke of Bedford, 19th September. Twenty-third Letter.—E.

[242] Sir William Draper’s Letter to Junius, 7th October 1769. Junius’s Twenty-sixth Letter.—E.

[243] The proceedings in the House of Commons on Dr. Musgrave’s charge are given in Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 763. Lord Mahon notices the charge as being utterly unfounded.—(History, vol. iv. p. 410.) Dr. Musgrave had published an excellent edition of Euripides, but in his latter years his reason was believed to be clouded. He died in 1780.—E.

[244] This does not agree with the authenticated accounts of the war in Corsica. So far from it, Paoli at first succeeded in repelling the attacks of the French, notwithstanding their superiority of numbers. They were worsted in an engagement near Loreto, with great loss, several companies having been drowned in the Golo in the attempt to make their escape. On the 29th of October the corps sent to attack Murato received a signal defeat, their commander being among the slain.—(Sismondi’s Histoire de France, vol. xxix. p. 380.)—The overwhelming force brought over by the Count de Vaux early in 1769 soon dispersed the Corsican levies, and rendered all further resistance on the part of Paoli perfectly vain. Paoli was much respected in England by men of all parties. At the commencement of the Revolution he was invited to France, and after an enthusiastic reception by the National Assembly, placed in the command of Corsica, with the rank of Lieutenant-General of the Island. The troubles that followed led him to offer the Crown to England in 1793; but the English rule proved unfortunate both to the Corsicans and to himself. He soon returned to England, and died in the neighbourhood of London, in his eightieth year. He left a considerable fortune, part of which eventually fell under the administration of the Court of Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor issued a commission to Corsica to ascertain his heirs.—See more of him in Capefigue Diplomates Européens, pp. 123–133—E.

[245] According to the Duke’s own account in his Memoirs he was at this time on uneasy terms with his colleagues, of whose general policy he disapproved, and by whom he was generally outvoted in the Cabinet. Nothing but the absence of an adequate excuse for resignation kept him in office. It may be observed, also, that his marriage (to Miss Jane Wrottesly), which took place on the 24th of June, had been followed by his installation at Cambridge, where his presence was indispensable.—E.

[246] Mr. Thomas Pitt, nephew of Lord Chatham, was on some occasions a man of probity and generosity. He gave five thousand pounds a-piece to his two sisters, left destitute by their father; and himself marrying Miss Wilkinson, whose elder sister had disobliged their father by marrying against his consent, both Mr. Pitt and his wife would not conclude their marriage without disclaiming all advantage to the prejudice of the elder sister. [See vol. i. p. 339. His nominees were Mr. Gerard Hamilton, and Mr. Crawford, Chamberlain for the County of Fife.—E.]

[247] He was on that day aged forty-five, the date of his famous number and device.

[248] The knowledge of this fact is said to have been the reason why the jury did not give higher damages.—E.

[249] James Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare, first Duke of Leinster. [An amiable nobleman, always zealous to promote the welfare of his country. He died in 1773.—E.]

[250] The King’s Letters to Lord North contain the following reference to Lord Shannon and another politician of the same stamp. “Lord Townshend’s idea of a pension to Lord Shannon is absurd—to let him do all the mischief he can while his assistance could be of use, and then reward him when his good wishes can avail nothing. Mr. Allen is only an additional proof of that aversion to English Government and of that avowed profligacy that the gentlemen of that country seem to despise masking with the name of conscience, and must sooner or later oblige this country seriously to consider whether the uniting it to this Crown would not be the only means of making both islands flourishing.” Lord Shannon died in 1807.—E.

[251] In the money-bills, the Irish Parliament had endeavoured to lay a tax on English beer, but it was rejected by a few voices; the Speaker, fearing to lose his place of 4000l. a-year at the head of the revenue, should they provoke England too far. They made an alteration, however, in their own gauging, which some here thought equivalent to a tax on our beer, and the Council were inclined to reject that alteration, yet, desirous of getting the money-bills passed, and the Attorney-General declaring that it was no violation of Poynings’s Act, the alteration was suffered to remain, and the money-bills were sent back uncorrected.

[252] Of King’s Remembrancer. It was a little before this time that Calcraft, ignoble as his birth and rise were, aspired, by the Duke of Grafton’s favour, to the title of Earl of Ormond. George Selwyn said, “Calcraft might have pretensions to that title, as no doubt he must have had many Butlers in his family.”

[253] Junius’s account of the prosecution, Letter xxxiii, is fair—making the usual deductions. See also Rex v. Vaughan (Burrow’s Reports, vol. iv. p. 4494)—by which it seems that the motion for the criminal information was made by Mr. Dunning.—“An Appeal to the Public on Behalf of Samuel Vaughan Esq.,” 8vo., states some mitigating circumstances.—E.

[254] Of Valeroyal [he died in 1779, aged fifty-three].—E.

[255] The evidence of Sir Philip Francis being the author of Junius has been observed by an eminent lawyer who took no part in the controversy, to be such as would be held conclusive by a jury on a question of fact.—E.

[256] By Earl Waldegrave she had three daughters,—the Ladies Laura, Maria, and Horatia.

[257] The King and Queen certainly intended it should be supposed Lady Waldegrave was the Duke’s mistress. The world interpreted it in a contrary sense in compliment to the Queen’s virtue, who on that occasion wished her virtue had been thought more accommodating.

[258] Walpole is mistaken here. The King was at least as much opposed to the Duke of Gloucester’s marriage as the Princess Dowager. As late as in 1775 his sentiments remained unaltered, and in granting the Duke permission to travel on the Continent, he positively declined to make a provision for his Royal Highness’s family. In a letter to Lord North, 15th January, 1775, the King says—“I cannot deny that on the subject of this Duke my heart is wounded. I have ever loved him with the fondness one bears to a child.” “His highly disgraceful step,” &c. “—his wife, whom I never can think of placing in a situation to answer her extreme pride and vanity. Should any accident befall the Duke, I shall certainly provide for his children.”

Eventually the King acted with great generosity towards the Duchess and her son and daughter by the Duke. Their conduct was so irreproachable that the marriage could no longer have been a subject of regret to him.—E.