[118] Lord Hillsborough was described by Walpole, some years before, as “a young man of great honour and merit, remarkably nice in weighing whatever cause he was to vote in, and excellent at setting off his reasons, if the cause was at all tragic, by a solemnity in his voice and manner that made much impression on his hearers.”—(Memoirs of George the Second, vol. i. p. 70.)—With such qualifications as a character for independence and some proficiency in public speaking, he was able to render the Ministers essential service, and, in return, they admitted him into their counsels, where he was believed to exercise considerable influence. Lord Holland courted him, and he was esteemed by Mr. Pitt. At length, in 1763, he accepted the post of First Lord of Trade and Plantations, and in 1768, as has been already mentioned, became Secretary of State. He did not maintain in office the reputation he had acquired out of it. Although he made, at times, a tolerable set speech, he proved an imprudent, and by no means effective debater. In the Cabinet he attached himself to the Court party, and gave the most determined opposition to the concessions to America, recommended by the Duke of Grafton and Lord Camden, both of whom charged him personally with exasperating the unhappy differences between the two countries by the course he took with respect to his circular letter of May, 1769. He was less to blame in the debate on the Falkland Islands than Walpole supposes, for the recent publication of Mr. Harris’s dispatches (Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i. p. 63) shows that he did not overrate the pacific disposition of the Spanish Court. In Irish politics he always took an active part, and was one of the first statesmen who sought to promote the Union. Several useful institutions in Ireland owed their origin or prosperity to his vigorous support. He also set a valuable example to other Irish landlords, by his improvements on his estates in Downshire. In 1772 he was made Earl of Hillsborough, and in 1793 he obtained from Mr. Pitt an Irish Marquisate (of Downshire). He died in 1793.—E.
[119] The report of this debate occupies more than thirty pages in Cavendish, vol. ii. pp. 57–88. The speeches were of a discursive character.—E.
[120] The debate is given by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 89. It turned more on the law of libel as administered in the recent trials of Rex v. Almon than on the specific subject of the motion. The speeches of Mr. Burke and Mr. Serjeant Glynn may still be read with interest.—E.
[121] Lord Egmont united qualifications which seldom fail to raise their fortunate possessor to the highest offices in a constitutional government. He was excelled by few of his time as a public speaker, by none as a political writer. His great talent was said to lie in indefatigable application, and yet he delighted in popular excitement, which he could direct with consummate skill, and with courage that proved equal to any emergency. The effect, however, of these gifts was marred by a perversion of judgment which led him both into gross absurdities, and the most culpable inconsistencies. When scarce a man, Walpole says, he had a scheme of assembling the Jews and making himself their King.—(Memoires of George the Second, vol. i. p. 30.)—It is more certain that he regarded the restoration of feudal tenures as the best security for the liberty and welfare of the people! After having been the idol and the leader of mobs, he became the obsequious follower of Lord Bute, and, although a passionate admirer of fame, he sought no result from his political exertions beyond places, titles, and sinecures. His mansion in Somersetshire, a monument of his extraordinary predilection for the middle ages, was pulled down only a few years ago. Walpole has given his character in the Memoires of George the Second, vol. ii. p. 32, which is illustrated by some amusing anecdotes in a letter to Sir Horace Mann (Letters, vol. ii. p. 260).—E.
[122] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1301.—E.
[123] This motion arose out of the debate on the power of the Attorney-General to file informations ex officio. The able speeches made by Serjeant Glynn and Burke forcibly exposed the injustice of the law of libel, as administered by Lord Mansfield in the recent trials, and supplied many of the arguments which were afterwards so effectually used in procuring the alteration of the law by Lord Camden and Mr. Fox (Cavendish vol. ii. p. 89, seqq.—E.)
[124] This is one of the few instances in which Serjeant Glynn appears to disadvantage. No doubt he felt strongly the wrongs of the Colonists, and shared with Lord Chatham and other leading statesmen of the day, a most unfavorable opinion of the Parliament. No personal considerations influenced him. He was as little tainted by the political as by the moral profligacy of Wilkes. Few of his speeches in Parliament have been preserved, but all are in an elevated tone, and the candour and moderation which distinguish them are not less remarkable than their talent and intrepidity. In these, as in many other respects, he bore a strong resemblance to Sir Samuel Romilly. It is to be regretted that few particulars can now be collected of this valuable man. He belonged to a Cornish family, once settled at a seat of the same name, now the property of Lord Vivian. His practice at the bar was very considerable. Not only did he argue most of the political cases of the day, but it appears, from Mr. Wilson’s and the other contemporary reports, that he had a large share of the general business. He succeeded Mr. Eyre as Recorder of London in 1772, when the salary of the office was raised from 800l. to 1000l. a-year, as a mark of respect towards him. He died in middle life, on the 16th September, 1779.—E.
[125] This confession is very memorable. The subsequent behaviour of the Court leaves strong room to suspect that instead of profiting of the favourable disposition of the Colonies by temperate measures, the Court hurried into the succeeding war, and wished to provoke the Colonies to unite, that all might be treated as rebels and conquered. The Ministers did succeed in the provocation, but not in the conquest.
[126] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1319.—E.
[127] Cavendish’s Debates, vol. ii. p. 149.—E.