[75] The Ministry showed great indecision in the affair of the remonstrance. Vigorous efforts, indeed, had been made to defeat it in the City; and when these failed, the most serious perplexity followed. The Attorney-General’s opinion was asked whether the remonstrance was impeachable, but no answer could be obtained from him.—(Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal.—Mr. Calcraft’s letter in Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 430.) Frequent communications passed between the King and Lord North on the subject. I shall only extract the following:—“I shall be glad to hear what precedents you have got. I continue of opinion that an answer must be given to the remonstrance, and that, unless the instances are very similar of having directed a certain number to attend, it would in every way be best to receive them on the throne.”—(The King’s Letter to Lord North, MS., March 11.)—E.
[76] Sir Edward Blackett, Bart., of Matson Hall, M.P. for Northumberland. He died in 1804, at the great age of eighty-five. Lord Collingwood, who had married his niece, describes him as “one of the kindest and most benevolent of men.”—(Correspondence and Memoirs of Lord Collingwood, vol. i. p. 129.)—E.
[77] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 516–45. It is to be regretted that he has taken no notice of Dunning’s speech. Burke makes the greatest figure in the report, but Lord North is also very able.—E.
[78] Henry Herbert, afterwards created Lord Portchester, [and in 1793 Earl of Caernarvon. He was Master of the Horse in 1806. He died in 1811. The present Earl is his grandson.—E.]
[79] This debate took place on the 4th of February; it is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 435.—E.
[80] The debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 505. The argument was all on one side, little being urged against the bill deserving of serious refutation. The measure had the good fortune to receive very general approbation out of the House, and by many it was regarded as giving its author an incontestable claim to the gratitude of his country. How far all this commendation was genuine, is another question. It has of later days been doubted whether the Grenville Act has not been productive of more harm than good. It certainly increased the number of petitions, without diminishing the expense of prosecuting them, and any improvement it may have effected in the tribunal for trying them was very short lived. As long as political parties were split into several sections, the election committees preserved a decent impartiality; but from the time that only two great parties were recognised in the State, all the evils revived which it had been the object of the Act to extirpate. Such gross injustice was committed as at length to rouse public indignation, and after much discussion in the House the Committees were again essentially reformed by a recent Act. This measure was framed with care and good intentions; but some of the decisions to which it has given rise are too startling for it to be yet recognised as a successful piece of legislation.—E.
[81] Barré might have added, that Grenville had fallen because he was not influenced by Lord Bute, but had been at enmity with him, and turned out his brother Mackenzie; and that Dowdeswell had fallen from the same cause, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord Rockingham, who was also an enemy to Lord Bute. Fourteen years after the period here treated, viz., in 1783–4, the secret influence was no longer secret; the Duke of Portland’s Administration was openly overturned by the exertion of that influence, and, which is still more remarkable, the eldest son of the very Mr. Grenville here mentioned was the tool employed by Jenkinson (here also in question) and the secret cabal of the King. Be it remembered, too, that Mr. Grenville’s bill which for thirteen years had been carried into constant execution with strict justice and applause, was impeached in the first instance of the new Parliament of 1784, chosen in consequence of that secret influence, and upon occasion of the scrutiny for the Westminster election, which violation was practised by Mr. William Pitt, the second son of Lord Chatham, in which he was supported by Mr. William Grenville, the second son of Mr. George Grenville, author of the bill.
[82] Sir Robert Bernard, Bart., of Brampton Park, Hunts. He was a bustling’ eager politician, and, like Sawbridge and others of the same extreme principles, had found more scope for his activity in London than his own county. He died without issue in 1789, having left his estates to his nephew, Robert Sparrow, Esq., afterwards Brigadier-General Bernard Sparrow, from whom they have descended to the Duchess of Manchester—the General’s only surviving child.—E.
[83] Lord Sandys had been placed at the Board of Trade on the King’s accession in 1760 (supra, vol. i. p. 44), when the comprehensive principle on which the Government was formed brought men of very different political opinions into office. He seems to have regarded his post as a sinecure—as indeed it in a great measure became by the withdrawal of the West Indies from the department. He left an only son, on whose death the title became extinct.—E.
[84] For an account of Lord Ligonier see supra, vol. i. p. 208, note.—E.