His domestic qualities were all of the amiable kind. His only remarkable vice proved fatal to him: his constant excesses in wine inflamed his sanguine complexion, hurrying him out of the world at forty-nine!
The regiment of Blue Guards, vacant by Lord Granby’s death, was immediately given to General Conway. Lord Holland, when acting Minister in the House of Commons, had carried a positive promise of that regiment, on the first vacancy, to the Duke of Richmond. The Duke, who did not expect that engagement would be kept to him, now in earnest opposition, wrote an artfully handsome letter to the King to release him from that promise; but his Majesty had violated it before he received the Duke’s dispensation, and made no answer.[111] The Duke was not less hurt at Conway’s accepting the place, knowing it had been promised to his Grace. Conway pleaded having had no notion that the Duke thought of it, now he was so fixed in opposition. The Duke owned he had not expected it; but asked Conway a distressing question,—whether he had had more friendship for Lord Granby, for whose sake he would not accept the Ordnance, which Lord Granby had resigned, than for him, who was his son-in-law and intimate friend; yet Lord Granby had resigned it, which made a difference—and Conway, who was fonder of applause than money, thought it would be popular to refuse Lord Granby’s spoils. The King was probably not sorry to occasion a jealousy between the Duke and Conway; but I reconciled them. The Duke for years resented the King’s breach of his word; and though he paid his duty to the Queen, he constantly left the drawing-room without approaching the King. The fluctuation of parties in 1783 and 1784 brought them together again; but though the Duke grew a zealous courtier, contrary to his many warm declarations, the King, who had given the offence, was not so cordially reconciled; and though he always embraced an enemy to expose him, his alacrity was as great in sacrificing him on the first opportunity.
On the 27th of October, the Princess of Wales and the Duke of Gloucester returned from Germany. They travelled all night and arrived very early in London, to prevent her Royal Highness receiving any insults from the populace.
The preparatives for war and the want of men occasioned orders being given for pressing. Wilkes, as the patron of liberty, declared against that practice as illegal; and, as sitting Alderman, dismissed a man who had been impressed within the liberties of the City. Sawbridge did the like; yet the latter was by no means attached to Wilkes, nor led by him. The strictness of Sawbridge’s principles and the insinuations of his comrade Townshend, had made him look with aversion on the profligacy of Wilkes. They publicly disagreed at a numerous and tumultuous meeting of the lowest inhabitants of Westminster, assembled by invitation in the Hall, where Wilkes read a Paper to them calculated to promote an impeachment of Lord North for the neglect of the Falkland Islands, for advising the measures taken on the Middlesex election, and for the contempt into which the nation was fallen with foreign countries. The paper recommended to advise his Majesty to remove all his Ministers, particularly Lord Mansfield, and to admit no Scot into Administration. It proposed laws for empowering electors to choose any man without regard to any sentence passed on him for any crime whatsoever; and for prohibiting general warrants being issued, even for recruiting the army and navy; and other laws to allow an additional witness to be brought to convict a man, though acquitted by a jury or pardoned by a Court! The extravagant injustice and folly of the two last propositions, and the latitude and impracticability of the rest, wore evident marks of absurdity and despair: and the three first heads could by no means be applicable to Lord North, the two first having happened in the Duke of Grafton’s Administration; and the contempt conceived for us by foreigners being the result of Lord Bute’s peace, of the distracted and fluctuating counsels of the Court, and of repeated changes of contradictory Administrations. One More then called out, desiring to have the paper read again, most of the audience, he said, not having heard distinctly the particulars, and being averse to vote for what they had not heard. Having a loud voice, More himself was desired to read the paper, which he did, and disputed with Wilkes on many articles of it. Sawbridge, too, opposed the insertion of the contents into a memorial, because in so venal a Parliament Lord North would be sure of an acquittal, which would only do him service (and in truth it was evident that Lord North was only attacked as Minister for the time being). Sawbridge therefore proposed another remonstrance to the King, which was agreed, and was confined almost to the Middlesex election. It was signed by Wilkes as chairman of the assembly, and presented to the King on the 7th of November by Sir Robert Bernard, who would not kneel when he delivered it. Wilkes published an enthusiastic account of the above meeting, professing he believed that the voice of the people was the voice of God.
This unprosperous state of the Opposition was very favourable to the Ministry, especially to Lord North, who wished to avoid a war with Spain; nor was the unprejudiced part of the nation at all eager for war. The Rockingham party called for it to embarrass the Government, and the patriots in the City meant to clog the operations of it. In this situation no answer being arrived from Spain, and the Session of Parliament being ready to open, it seemed extraordinary that Lord North, possessed of so much power, did not put off the meeting, which was fixed for the 13th of November, as it was possible a definitive answer might arrive on the 10th, and leave but three days to determine on peace or war.[112] Lord North said he had two speeches ready for the King, either a martial or a pacific one—but was that a justification? or indeed was it prudent to leave so little time for option? The fact, I believe, was, that he was duped both at home and abroad. Francés, the French Chargé-d’affaires, persuaded him that the Duc de Choiseul was intensely bent on preserving peace—a point on which I shall say more hereafter. On the other hand, the most mysterious, and indeed suspicious, conduct was held by Lord Weymouth and his governor Wood, who communicated as little as possible of the negotiation to Lord North. This conduct requires both a detail and a comment.
Not only to Lord North was Lord Weymouth reserved and incommunicative; not only to Francés would he give no opening; but to Robert Walpole, Secretary to the Embassy at Paris (whence Lord Harcourt was absent), his dispatches were so mysterious and inexplicit, that Thomas Walpole advised his brother to send them back, or come away. Every letter began with directions not to admit the French as mediators, but only as friends. This was proper; but the caution was so great and the repetitions so frequent, that it looked more like fear of the letters being called for by Parliament, than dignity inspired by national honour. It was understood so little in the latter light by the Duc de Choiseul, that he said to Thomas Walpole, then at Paris, “Milord Weymouth ne parle point, et Milord Rochfort parle trop.” The latter was a weak man, zealous against France, and obnoxious to Choiseul, who, made impatient by Lord Weymouth’s dilatory darkness, and apprised of Lord North’s pacific disposition, said at last to Robert Walpole, “Votre Ministère ne veut pas faire la guerre, et ne sait pas faire la paix.” Wood came under bad suspicions, and, I believe, very deservedly, on this enigmatic conduct, to which many motives concurred. His ideas were by no means ready, though in writing he had the art of elucidating them beautifully. He was full of guile, dark, and interested. His patrons, Lord Weymouth and Lord Gower, were impatient to overturn Lord North, and share or scramble for his power; and Wood, though willing to promote their views, had certainly a farther view of his own. He was impressed with a notion that war with Spain was unavoidable; and concluded that his ancient master, Lord Chatham, would be called out by the nation to manage that war—at least, on the first check given to our arms. This he inadvertently dropped; and the irregularities of Lord Weymouth’s subsequent conduct confirmed the opinion that Wood was not unwilling to purchase his pardon of Lord Chatham, by the sacrifice of Lord North, and by the treachery of Lord Weymouth. Nor was this the most culpable part of Wood’s conduct. Francés, who trafficked deeply in our stocks, as they fluctuated during the vicissitudes of the negotiation, discovered Wood in the same path, and playing with the transactions as it suited his moneyed views. This Francés communicated to many, and, I believe, to Lord North, of whose honour he spoke highly, and vaunting that he himself could conclude the peace in a day’s time, if not traversed by Wood; for whatever were Choiseul’s views, Francés acted with seeming passion for pushing on the negotiation. France was, indeed, ill prepared for war. The very war which Choiseul had conjured up between Russia and Constantinople had fallen heavily on the French trade to the Levant, where the Russians had obtained a signal naval victory, to the demolition of the Turkish fleet, and where they paid little regard to the merchantmen of France.
In this suspense, the courier not being returned from Spain, the Parliament met; but first must be mentioned two memorable events.
About four days before the opening of the Houses, Lord Mansfield, Speaker of the Lords, acquainted the King with his intention of quitting that post. As there was so little time for supplying his place, both the King and Lord North were grievously offended with him;[113] but to the public it was matter of triumph and ridicule, pusillanimity being the sole reason of his abandoning so lucrative a post. Lord Chatham had sent him word, that he would inquire into and complain of the administration of justice in this country, four of the judges being become dependent on the Court—his Lordship as Speaker of the House of Lords, and three of the others as Commissioners of the Great Seal. The panic occasioned by that threat operated so strongly, that the King was obliged to determine on the Attorney-General for Lord Keeper; but as his health would not allow him to officiate immediately, Lord Mansfield, hoping that he had deprecated the thunder by publishing his intended resignation, consented to act for a few days; and by degrees recovering his abject spirits, was reconciled by the sweetness of the profit, and remained Speaker.
The second event hinted at, was the death of Mr. George Grenville. He had been dangerously ill in the summer, had recovered in some degree, relapsed, and had been brought to town in October for advice, where he soon fell into a desperate state, followed by a delirium that lasted to his death, which happened the very morning the Parliament met. His body being opened, his case appeared most singularly uncommon: his ribs were carious or quite worn away, and his skull as thin as paper. This extraordinary malady was imputed to a disorder in his blood, which had penetrated to the blood-vessels of his bones, and had corroded them.
Mr. Grenville was, confessedly, the ablest man of business in the House of Commons, and, though not popular, of great authority there from his spirit, knowledge, and gravity of character.[114] His faults, however, had been capital, and to himself most afflicting. His injudicious Stamp Act had exposed us to the risk of seeing all our Colonies revolt; and his resentment of the repeal had prevented him from ever forgiving Lord Chatham and Lord Rockingham, a sincere junction with whom might have driven the Court to restore him to power. His rash and ungrateful provocation of the Favourite, his indecently taking part with the Bedfords in their violent insult to the Princess on the Regency Bill, his forcing the King to break his word and turn out Mr. Mackenzie, and his silly parsimony in stinting the King’s expense in trifles, were crimes that had never been forgiven—the King, the Princess, and the Favourite being as weak in not pardoning him, as he had been in offending. No man would have seconded their views with more resolution or a more vindictive spirit. This was well-known to Lord Mansfield, who had constantly aimed at the restitution of Grenville, and whose recent panic had been increased by the prospect of Grenville’s death, having probably been privy to, if not the mediator of, a secret treaty that came out after Grenville expired. The latter, in short, had made his peace with Lord North, and was ready to accept almost any place. A new coldness that appeared between Lord Chatham and Lord Temple was no doubt owing to this transaction, Grenville depending too much on his brother for the reversion of the family estate to have dared to treat with the Court, unless secure of Lord Temple’s sanction. That coldness, however, was laid on the private affairs of the family. A panegyric immediately pronounced by Lord North on Grenville on the day of his death—a promise made, and soon performed, of taking care of Whateley, his secretary—the revolt of Lord Suffolk and Lord Hyde (Grenville’s intimate friends) to the Court—their ensuing preferments, and the accession of almost all his faction to the majority, to the absolute dereliction, not only of Lord Chatham, but of Lord Temple, confirmed the negotiation—at least, proved how secure Lord North had been of Grenville’s concurrence. To Lord Temple’s factious ambition his brother’s death was fatal. He could not command a vote in either House, nor could avoid the part he took of declaring his intention of abandoning politics. Lord Chatham was left almost as destitute of followers; and Lord Rockingham, his competitor Grenville being removed, now depended on being named to the Treasury, should Lord Chatham ever recover power: but Grenville’s death was no step to the success of the Opposition.