“The Duke of Newcastle, speaking himself of the cavalier manner with which Mr. Pitt treated the Cabinet, mentioned the instance of some foreign expedition which Mr. Pitt had proposed, but which, in the opinion of the ministers, and of Lord Anson, First Lord of the Admiralty, deprived Great Britain of too great a part of its internal defence. Lord Mansfield had not yet given his opinion; but Mr. Pitt, apprehensive that it would be against him, summed up the opinions of Council, a majority of which he declared to be for the expedition; adding, “The Chief Justice of England has no opinion to give in this matter thereby stopping his mouth. The Duke told Lord Coventry, that Mr. Murray, when Attorney-General, and in the House of Commons, had acknowledged to him that he was intimidated by Pitt. The more the latter found Murray to be intimidated, the more he naturally pressed him.
“I never saw the Duke in higher spirits than after Mr. Pitt, thwarted by the Cabinet in his proposal of declaring war against Spain, had given notice of resignation. The Duke had done more wisely, if he had followed Lord Hardwicke’s advice, and had resigned on the death of his late master. The Duke could not endure to part with his power, much less to devolve it on one who meant to keep it. When he last resigned the Treasury to the Duke of Devonshire, it was with a view to have it back again at a convenient season.”—E.
[117] The following extraordinary notice was published in the Gazette of the 9th October: “The Right Honourable William Pitt having resigned the Seals into the King’s hands, His Majesty was this day pleased to appoint the Earl of Egremont to be one of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State; and, in consideration of the great and important services of the said Mr. Pitt, His Majesty has been graciously pleased to direct that a warrant be prepared for granting to the Lady Hesther Pitt, his wife, a Barony of Great Britain, by the name, style, and title of Baroness of Chatham, to herself, and of Baron of Chatham to her heirs male, and also to confer upon the said William Pitt, Esq., an annuity of three thousand pounds sterling, during his own life and that of Lady Hesther Pitt, and their son John Pitt, Esq.”—E.
[118] It certainly is not the practice now (1844) to insert pensions in the Gazette. Whether it ever was so it would be difficult to ascertain, as there is no index prior to the year 1787. The impression of two very old officers, who have frequent occasions to consult the Gazette, is, that no such general practice ever prevailed.—E.
[119] It was by such expressions as this that Mr. Pitt created the disappointment in the public mind, that followed the announcement of his pension. To use the words of Lord Brougham: “He did not sustain the exalted pitch of magnanimous independence, and utter disregard of sublunary interests, which we should expect him to have reached and kept as a matter of course, from a mere cursory glance at the mould in which his lofty character was cast.” Statesmen of the Time of George III., 1st series, p. 45. A pension of £4000 a year to Lord Holderness passed without a murmur, while one of £3000 a year to Mr. Pitt raised a general burst of indignation, only because the country regarded the latter as lowering their idol to the level of the jobbing statesmen of the day. The cry against Mr. Pitt was, indeed, almost universal. See letter to Mr. Conway, vol. iv. of Walpole’s Collected Correspondence, p. 184; and particularly the note containing the opposite opinions of Mr. Gray and Mr. Burke. Mr. Pitt’s noble refusal of the vast emoluments of the Pay-office, which so enriched those who preceded and succeeded him as Paymaster, entitles his conduct in all pecuniary matters to a liberal construction from posterity. What is really to be regretted, is the humiliating tone of his correspondence with Lord Bute, in accepting the pension (Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 152,) and his language at his interview with the King on that occasion.—Annual Register for 1761. But we will not dwell on the defects of a man who certainly was far above his age, not only in talent, but in real independence.—E.
[120] Thomas Prowse, member for Somersetshire, which he had represented in five successive Parliaments, having been every time unanimously elected. He was an opulent, well-informed, and influential country gentleman. He died, after a long illness, in 1767, aged 59, and was buried in Axbridge Church; where the long panegyric on his tomb states—“That though frequently solicited, he never could be prevailed upon to accept any employment in the state.” Collinson’s History of Somerset, vol. iii. p. 563.—E.
[121] Edward Bacon, of Earlham Hall, Norfolk, barrister-at-law, and M. P. for Norwich. He was son of Walter Bacon, of Earlham Hall, and M. P. for Norwich. Mr. Edward Bacon had been member for Lynn in 1742. He represented Norwich from 1752 to 1784, when he retired from Parliament. He died in March 1786, and was buried in the chancel of Earlham Church. His portrait is still preserved at Earlham Hall.—E.
[122] A more favourable character of Sir John Cust is given in the preface of Moore’s General Index to the Journals of the House of Commons, vol. iv.; a very useful work, to the compilation of which he contributed. He added to great industry, a considerable knowledge of Parliamentary history and constitutional law; and his amiable disposition and obliging temper were no insignificant recommendations to the Speakership. He was a Lincolnshire country gentleman, of ancient family, and had inherited a great estate from his mother, the heiress of the Tyrconnels.—E.
[123] Sir Hugh Smithson Percy, Earl of Northumberland.
[124] John Berkeley, fifth and last Lord Berkeley of Stratton. He died without issue in 1773, having left his principal estates to Lord Berkeley.—E.