If we were asked to single out from ancient or modern story one bright unsullied example of true greatness, of perfect patriotism, disinterestedness, consistency, and self-devotion, it would be difficult not to select George Washington. England, that suffered by his acts, has reason to be proud of his surpassing glory; for he came from the common stock, and he wrought the liberty of his country by the exercise of virtues dear to all Englishmen, and—let us dare to say—characteristic of their race. He received the most ordinary education, for he lost his father when ten years old; and he had to make his way in life by his own best efforts. At the age of eighteen he was appointed surveyor, in Virginia, to Lord Fairfax. At twenty he was Major in the colonial militia. In 1775, he took the command of the army in America against England. How he acted from that hour until 1783, when the treaty of peace was signed,—what intrepidity he exhibited,—what wisdom, what coolness, what courage, what moderation, what rare self-command under defeat, for, fighting at great disadvantage, he lost more battles than he gained,—is known to all. In 1789, he was elected President of the United States. As chief of the government, he declined all remuneration, save the bare payment of his official service: he had shown the same abstinence when in command of the army. In 1796, worn out by the labours and anxieties of his momentous life, he laid down his power and withdrew into privacy; but not until he had delivered to the American people, as his last public work, his solemn advice for their future self-government and conduct. His words of weight may be read to-day with singular advantage by the millions who enjoy the inappreciable blessings of freedom and prosperity, which his good right hand, sound heart, and sagacious judgment, chiefly secured to them. If hero-worship may be pardoned, he shall be forgiven—for his offence shall induce in him only humility—who kneels before the quiet, unpretending shrine of Washington.
[By Canova.]
451*. Warren Hastings. Statesman.
[Born 1732. Died 1818. Aged 86.]
Descended of an ancient and honoured line, seated at Daylesford, in Worcestershire, but ruined by taking the King’s side in the civil war. The boy, motherless, from his birth, and left in the hands of his grandfather, the impoverished incumbent of the parish, was sent early to the village school, and taught his letters with the peasantry. At seven years old, as he basked on the bank of the little stream that ran through the domain of his fathers, the thought of repossessing the lost inheritance broke on his imagination. The vision of the child was the single personal aim of the man’s life. What a life, ere the vision took reality! At 10 he was placed at Westminster school, at 17 he sailed with a writership for Bengal. His courage and intelligence, when the English authorities had fled from Calcutta, with his services in Clive’s army, raised him rapidly to distinction, and in ten years after setting foot on Indian ground, he was member of Council. At 32, he returned, with a moderate fortune, to England: and—that given and spent—at 36, back to India. At 40, Governor of Bengal. At 41, Governor-General. Ere the five years of his appointment had elapsed, he was more! He had overthrown his mortal foes in the Council: and was Lord Paramount of British India. In his 53rd year, his reign ceased. What had it been? With a resolution which no dangers and no difficulties could daunt, with a genius for resource, fertile in proportion to the demand, with a sagacity that disabled opposition and commanded success, with a self-possession calm in every tempest, he had taken in hand a set of provinces imperilled by their disorganization and by terrible enemies: and he left a constructed and fortified empire. What had been his means? Good and ill. He had stood between the rapacious rulers and the feeble ruled, and was alike beloved by both. A civilian, he held the heart and allegiance of the army. But in India he had used Indian powers. He had not amassed money corruptly, but he had corrupted with it. He had extorted treasure, he had broken faith, he had authorized and instigated cruelty, he had violated justice to shed guilty blood, he had held the ordinary moral laws suspended, for the safety and the aggrandizement of the dominion committed to his sway. Called to answer before the highest tribunal in the land, by all the intellect, eloquence, and power of a great party in Parliament, he was acquitted after a process of unheard-of duration, reaching through many years: but ruined by the costs. Partially compensated by the India House he retired to the ancestral home which, according to his early resolve, he had taken care to secure. Here for years he lived a tranquil, happy life in the midst of books, which he loved, and of endeavours to improve English cultivation from his experience in India.
[By J. Bacon, R.A.]
452. Charles James Fox. Statesman.
[Born 1748. Died 1806. Aged 58.]
This great orator and popular statesman, like his rival William Pitt, was trained from his youth for political life. He was the son of Henry, first Lord Holland, and received his education at Westminster, Eton, and Oxford. His acquaintance with ancient and modern literature was extensive, his taste highly cultivated, and his literary ability great. Had he not been a politician, he might have won high distinction as a scholar; or, had he not been constitutionally indolent, have reflected lustre upon his public deeds by labours in more classic fields. There was a difference of ten years in the ages of Pitt and Fox; Pitt being the younger man. Both were second sons: both had been sedulously prepared for the great arena by their ambitious fathers. Pitt began his work as a Reformer, but quickly turned aside into the ranks of the Tories. Fox, starting into life under the wing of his Tory parent, spoke and voted against Wilkes; but quickly repenting of his act, threw himself into the arms of the Whigs. And then the battle between the two rare combatants was well fought out unto the end—Pitt dying in harness in 1806, Fox following him the very same year. Fox was a Liberal, as the name was in his time understood by the great Whig families—an aristocrat with popular ideas, sympathizing with progress, but holding fast to the pillar of the constitution, every stone of which he jealously upheld. On every great subject he stood opposed to Pitt; he inveighed bitterly against the war with France, as he had formerly steadily opposed the rupture with the American Colonies. He was a speaker of extraordinary power; his oratory being bold, argumentative, impassioned, and unpremeditated. His followers were attached to his person, and in private life he was beloved, for he had an affectionate and noble nature, clouded by sad weaknesses. He was a desperate gamester, and a lover of pleasure to excess. At St. Ann’s Hill, withdrawn from the heat of conflict and dissipation, to his quiet and beloved garden—to his friends and his books, he was more faithful to himself, and to the good gifts of Providence within him.
[By I. Nollekens, R.A.]