[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.