Provision for the King’s Brothers.--Debate.--Death of the Marquis
of Tavistock.--Of the Dauphiness.--The Indian Papers.--Intrigues
of Grenville.--Regulation of America.--Temper in which the
Americans received the Repeal.--New Project of using Force towards
the Colonies.--Discussion in the House of Lords on the American
Papers.--The East Indian Question.--Real or Affected Insanity of
Lord Chatham.--Interview of the Author with the Lord Chancellor.--
The Latter lets out a Secret which is turned to Advantage by
Walpole.--Debate on an Act of the Assembly of Massachusets.--
Attempted Reconciliation between Conway and Rockingham.
During these altercations, and while the time necessary for calling
and holding courts of directors or proprietors delayed the prosecution
of this matter, the King sent a message to both Houses, desiring them
to make a provision for his brothers. The message was taken into
consideration on the 19th, and in each House Lord Temple and Mr.
Grenville objected to the establishment being entailed on the issue
of the Princes. On the 24th, when it was to be voted, Mr. Grenville,
without directly opposing, made a very able speech and observations
on the settlement. It would be an additional expense, he said, of
24,000_l._ a year on the Civil List, and might have been saved from
other articles. The charge of ambassadors might be reduced, who
each cost the Crown 13,000_l._ the first year. He ridiculed Lord
Chatham’s magnificent plans of naming ambassadors to various Courts,
and despatching none of them. He had threatened to dissolve the
Family-compact; yet Sir James Grey was not yet set out for Spain, nor
Mr. Lyttelton[337] for Portugal. Turn north, there were the same great
plans, yet Mr. Stanley was not gone. Mr. George Pitt was alike absent
from Turin; to those gentlemen he professed meaning nothing personal:
the Chancellor of the Exchequer must pay them, and they were in the
departments of the Secretaries of State, who, though in responsible
places, he was sure were not to blame. The pensions on Ireland amounted
to 88,000_l._ a year; the revenue of that country ought to be laid out
to support the Royal Family, and Ireland would like it. Stanley, a
very warm man, took this invective to himself, and showed how much he
resented it. He complained that Grenville had given him no notice of
the intended attack, and observed how delicate his own situation was in
speaking, or not speaking, between private honour and the duty he owed
to the King of secrecy. He did not care, he said, whether the attack
was pointed at him, or to wound another through him; the employment he
had not sought: in France he had served to his loss, and was ready
to have his conduct inquired into. Had Lord Egremont (Grenville’s
brother-in-law) gone, when he was named to the congress at Augsbourg?
Foreign Ministers had no means of raising a fortune. Had he himself a
son he would say to him, “Get into Parliament, make tiresome speeches;
you will have great offers; do not accept them at first,--then do; then
make great provision for yourself and family, and then call yourself an
independent country gentleman.” For himself, he was ready to answer Mr.
Grenville there or anywhere else. Severe as the picture was, Grenville
had drawn it on himself, resenting Stanley’s having left him for Lord
Chatham. Nor could Stanley be blamed for taking offence; he had been
represented in a disgraceful light, while he had acted with singular
honour, and yet was not at liberty to disculpate himself. The fact
stood thus: Lord Chatham, as I have said, full of a grand northern
alliance, had named Stanley Minister to both the Russian and Prussian
Courts. The latter would not receive him: the Czarina did not like the
proposed alliance, nor the expense of sending an ambassador in return:
yet had she named Prince Czernicheff. Sir George Maccartney had desired
leave to come home; and thus Stanley stood on the list as ambassador,
in compliment to the nomination of an ambassador from St. Petersburg;
yet, perceiving he was not to go, he had honourably refused to take
the appointments; a state secret he could not disclose, as it would be
telling the Russian Court that there was no longer an intention of
sending him. Dowdeswell spoke in favour of the Princes, as he was to
have made the same motion the foregoing spring. Sir Roger Newdigate, in
a dull metaphorical speech, abused the Administration, and complimented
Grenville. Charles Townshend turned him into the highest ridicule,
analysing his metaphors, and reducing them and the whole speech, as
it deserved, to nonsense. Newdigate replied, and with the obstinacy
of dulness professed he had never admired any Administration but
Grenville’s. Townshend enforced what he had said with new ridicule: the
settlement was granted, and the King saved 9000_l._ a year.
A melancholy event relaxed a little the assiduity of the Opposition.
The Marquis of Tavistock,[338] only son of the Duke of Bedford, was
thrown from his horse as he was hunting, and received a kick that
fractured his skull. He languished about a fortnight, and died at the
age of twenty-seven. If there was a perfectly amiable and unblemished
character in an age so full of censure, and so much deserving it, the
universal esteem in which the virtues of that young Lord were held,
seemed to allow that he was the person. His gentleness, generosity, and
strict integrity made all the world love or admire him. Full of spirit
and martial ardour, which he suppressed in deference to a father to
whom his life was so important, he had the genuine bashfulness of
youth, and the humility of the lowest fortune. His large fortune he
shared with his cotemporary friends, assisting them in purchasing
commissions. Yet he had taste for those arts whose excellence and
splendour became the House of so great an heir, and indulged himself in
them when they did not interfere with his more favourite liberality.
His parts were neither shining nor contemptible; and his virtue
assisted his understanding in preserving both from being biassed or
seduced. To observers, it was clear that he much disapproved the want
of principle in the relations and dependants[339] of his parents;
yet so respectful was his duty to his father, and so attentive his
tenderness to his mother, and so artfully had she impressed it, that
Lord Tavistock’s repugnance to their connections and politics was only
observable by his shunning Parliament, and by withdrawing himself from
their society to hunting and country sports. He was not less exemplary
as a husband than as a son, and his widow, who doated on so excellent
a young man, survived him but two years.[340] The indecent indifference
with which such a catastrophe was felt by the faction of the family,
spoke but too plainly that Lord Tavistock had lived a reproach and
terror to them. The Duke, his father, for a few days almost lost his
senses--and recovered them too soon. The Duchess was less blameable,
and retained the impression longer; but while all mankind who ever
heard the name of Lord Tavistock were profuse in lamenting such
a national calamity, it gave universal scandal when, in a little
fortnight after his death, they beheld his father, the Duke, carried
by his creatures to the India House to vote on a factious question.
This unexampled insensibility was bitterly pressed home on the Duke
two years afterwards in a public libel. Yet surely, it was savage
wantonness to taunt a parent with such a misfortune; and of flint
must the heart have been that could think such a domestic stroke a
proper subject for insult, however inadequate to the world the anguish
appeared: how steeled the nature that could wish to recall the feelings
of a father on such a misfortune. In Borgia’s age they stabbed with
daggers; in ours with the pen![341]
About the same time died the widow Dauphiness, a pious but unamiable
Princess, and only remarkable for the various fortune that attended
her. Daughter of Augustus of Poland, she was married into the same
Court, where the daughter of her father’s rival, Stanislaus, was Queen.
Received and treated with affection by that Princess, and possessing
all the tenderness of her husband, her fruitfulness seemed to ensure
her felicity; when, though seated on the step of the most formidable
throne in Europe, she beheld her father again driven into exile, and
her mother dying in the midst of that calamity. Her family were scarce
restored when the Dauphin perished before her eyes of a lingering
illness; and she outlived him too short a time to be secure that the
youth of her children would not expose them to the dangers that attend
a minority.
The disputes in the East India Company, which grew out of their great
cause before the Parliament, produced an attack on Lord Clive, his
enemies attempting to seize the Jaghire that had been granted to him
by the Mogul; and it was but by a majority of about 30 voices that he
saved that immense revenue on a ballot, 361 voting for the continuation
of it for ten years, and 330 against it.
Towards the end of March the House began reading the East Indian papers
that had been laid before them; each day of which produced much general
debate, especially as witnesses were examined. The Attorney-General
De Grey and Dyson shone on these occasions, and showed how much the
question was a matter of state, and that the King’s Bench could have no
judicature over the East Indies. Governor Vansittart[342] was examined
for four hours, and gave much satisfaction: his evidence tended to
strengthen the right of the Crown, and brought over many persons to
that side. Colonel Monroe spoke strongly in his deposition to the same
effect.
In the mean time the faction of Grenville and the Bedfords, humbled
by the death of Lord Tavistock, and by the ground gained against
them on the India question, began to cast about for real union with
the Rockinghams. The latter, on the first overtures, and without any
positive assurance of that union, sought to draw Mr. Conway into the
league, affirming that Grenville, as they had lightly been made to
believe, would be content with some inferior post, and would waive
his hopes of being Minister. Conway, however, discontented with Lord
Chatham, and fearful of offending his old friends, did not listen to
a plan so improbable in its construction, and so dishonourable in its
tendency. Grenville could only mean to get to Court with the view of
undermining his associates when he should be there: and such a treaty
would be unpardonable in Conway, while acting in the King’s service.
He would not allow himself to think of the Treasury, which he knew
Lord Rockingham would never cede to him; and yet on talking over the
proposed arrangement with him, he said sensibly, and not unambitiously,
“If I should join them, I would insist on Grenville going into the
House of Lords.” He was not without fears of Grenville and Rockingham
uniting and leaving him with Lord Chatham and Lord Bute. I was not so
easily alarmed, though the Duke of Richmond endeavoured to persuade me
that the junction would certainly take place, and that Conway would
not even recover his regiment. I saw no danger comparable to that of
his resigning, and consequently of dissolving the Administration; and
very little to apprehend from the union of two men whom so many reasons
divided, and whom the predominant one of both aiming at the first place
must for ever keep asunder. So it happened then. Neither would yield
a post which neither saw a prospect of attaining by his own strength.
Grenville at last proposed that both should desist, and should agree in
the nomination of a third person. This, no doubt, he intended should be
his own brother, Temple, who might afterwards resign to him. But the
least proper was the most obstinate, and the treaty came to nothing. I
put the Duke of Richmond in mind of what Lord Gower had said the last
year, and asked him if he thought it likely that the Bedfords would
enlist under a man who was so much their contempt? Lord Sandwich having
abused Lord Rockingham in the House of Lords, Lord Gower said to him,
“Sandwich, how could you worry the poor dumb creature so!”
A question of more importance than the Indian one was now to come on
the carpet--the Regulation of America. The repeal of the Stamp Act,
however necessary and salutary, had, as Grenville and his adherents
foretold, instead of pacifying that continent, inspired the turbulent
with presumption. With whatever joy the repeal had been received,
it was not followed by that general gratitude to the Ministers who
obtained it, which they deserved. Great Britain having yielded, the
tribunes of America flattered themselves that new concessions might
be extorted: so certain is the march of successful patriotism towards
acquisition. Still the disturbances were not alarming nor universal:
and if, instead of tampering with a wound not closed, emollients,
restoratives, at least oblivion, and no farther essays at taxes had
succeeded, harmony perhaps had again taken place. A Ministry composed
of heterogeneous particles, some inclination to show authority after
mildness, an eagerness to replace the loss on the land-tax, and, above
all, the inconsiderate vanity of Charles Townshend, and not a small
propensity in him to pay court to Grenville, all concurred to prompt
rash and indigested measures; while a Parliament, so obsequious as that
of the moment, was ready to enact every successive contradiction that
was proposed to it by the Court, and eased Ministers of the trouble
of weighing the plans they intended to pursue. Nay, the circumstances
of the time recommended violence as the least obnoxious measure;
Grenville being sure to give less obstruction to any intemperance
which resembled his own, and secretly enjoying any indiscretion that
would involve his successors in the same difficulties as those he had
occasioned himself.
The first plan on which the Ministers fixed was that of force and
punishment. They proposed to oblige the Provinces to furnish beer and
vinegar to the soldiers; and if they refused, the governor of New York
was to be prohibited from giving the royal assent for holding their
assemblies. This step would, in effect, have been a dissolution of
their government, and not less violent than the seizure of charters by
Charles II. When the scheme was laid before the Cabinet, Conway, who
adhered to the conciliating measures of the last year, and to his own
mild maxims, alone opposed so arbitrary a project. When,
On the 30th of the month, the American papers which had been laid
before the Houses, were taken into consideration by the Lords. The
Chancellor opened the nature of them, and hinting at the disobedience
of the Colonies, said, if his own sentiments should not be so lenient
as formerly, it was because he had formed them anew on the Act passed
in the last session. Lord Weymouth observed to him, sensibly, that last
year’s had not been an Act but a Declaration. Lord Temple was more
acrimonious, his language gross, telling the Chancellor that his former
opinion of Parliament having _no right_ to tax the Colonies, had been
treasonable. The Duke of Grafton defended the Chancellor with great
propriety, and asked why Lord Temple had not called him, if guilty
of treason, to the bar? He reproached Temple, too, with blackening a
most respectable character (Lord Chatham’s), from revenge. The present
question, he said, was too serious for faction; but if places were
the objects of opposition, and if his would reconcile Lord Temple, it
was at his service. These bickerings were all that passed then. Lord
Denbigh called on the Opposition to propose some plan for restoring the
tranquillity and submission of America; but neither party were eager
to stir in it: the Ministers were afraid, the Opposition apprehended
disunion amongst themselves,--so different were the sentiments of
Grenville and Rockingham on that subject.
When the settlement on the Princes passed the House of Lords, Lord
Temple behaved with his usual violence. Great and deserved reflections
were thrown on Lord Northington for his scandalous extortion of
emoluments on the late change. Lord Temple then caused the House to be
summoned without acquainting them to what purpose.
The same day, his brother and the Opposition debated in the Commons
against delay on the East Indian affair till eight in the evening, and
then divided the House for calling in witnesses. Many of the courtiers
had gone away, and the motion was rejected but by 96 to 82! Sir W.
Meredith then declared, that if Beckford did not by that day sevennight
ascertain the House when he would bring on his questions, he would move
to dissolve the Committee. Such inconsistent conduct in the Opposition
was occasioned by its having appeared on the examination, that the
Crown would be justifiable in seizing the acquisitions of the Company,
so crying were the abuses, and so little was the Company itself
master of its own servants. Easter, too, was now approaching, and
the Opposition feared not being able to rally their forces after the
holidays. Grenville, apprehending from so many concurrent circumstances
favourable to Lord Chatham, that he would be able to acquire a large
revenue to the Crown, laboured to instil fears of such intended force;
saying, the East Indian business had begun in folly, and would end in
violence.
Lord Chatham himself either was not, or would not be, in a condition
to strike any great stroke. Though he still continued to take the air
publicly, his spirits and nerves were said to be in the lowest and
most shattered condition. Added to the phrenzy of his conduct, a new
circumstance raised general suspicion of there being more of madness
in his case, than mere caprice and impracticable haughtiness: he had
put himself into the hands of Dr. Addington--a regular physician, it is
true, but originally a mad doctor, innovating enough in his practice
to be justly deemed a quack. The physician, it was supposed, was
selected as proper to the disease; whereas, if all was not a farce, I
should think that the physician rather caused the disease, Addington
having kept off the gout, and possibly dispersed it through his nerves,
or even driven it up to his head. So long did Lord Chatham remain
without a fit of the gout, and so childish and agitated was his whole
frame, if a word of business was mentioned to him, tears and trembling
immediately succeeded to cheerful, indifferent conversation. Some
passages, too, which I shall specify hereafter, indicated a fond kind
of dotage; yet do I very much doubt whether the whole scene was not
imposition, and the dictates of disappointment, inability, and pride,
rather than the fruits of a brain extraordinarily distempered. A slave
to his passions, a master dissembler, and no profound statesman, his
conduct was more likely to be extravagant by design than from the
loss of his senses. As he reappeared in the world, and yet governed
his domestic affairs with the same wild wantonness and prodigality,
it is probable that there was not more folly in his secession from
business, than could be accounted for in so eccentric a composition. If
it was nothing but singularity and passion, Lord Chatham was certainly
the first man who ever retired from business into the post of Prime
Minister.
As I suspected that much of this ill-humour was founded on his
disappointment in Mr. Conway, who would not receive orders from
behind the veil of the _sanctum sanctorum_, and as I had heard that
the Chancellor complained much of the latter, I desired to wait on
Lord Camden, in order if possible to restore some harmony in the
Administration. Having appointed me an hour, I offered all that
depended on me towards reconciling my friend and Lord Chatham. The
Chancellor by no means aided my good disposition. He complained much
of Mr. Conway’s niceties, difficulties, and impracticability. In truth
Mr. Conway allowed too much to his scruples, and the Chancellor on the
other hand was a little too alert in relaxing his former principles;
the one leaning towards power, the other to popularity: yet I think
even the Chancellor was too much addicted to the latter, to have risked
it by any signal servility.[343] He was generally firm, when pushed
by the roughness of the times. A moderate degree of attention to his
fortune stole into his conduct, when it did not too much clash with
his professions or connections. He told me that Lord Chatham was very
willing to replace Mr. Conway in the army; and being but a novice in
politics, he let drop indiscreetly, that if the Ministers could weather
the session, there must be a totally new Administration; adding, that
Mr. Conway’s behaviour on the East Indian affair had been a stab to
Lord Chatham, and had reduced him to lean on Lord Bute.
Though I did not know whether this imprudent declaration implied an
intention of co-operating entirely with Bute, or might not look
towards Grenville, yet I saw plainly that there was an intention of
getting rid of Mr. Conway. I took no notice either to the Chancellor
or to Mr. Conway of what I had discovered, lest the latter should
resign immediately; but I instantly determined to keep Conway steady
to his last year’s point of moderation towards America. It would
preserve his connection with his old friends, who would be necessary
to him, if Lord Chatham broke with him; and it was essential to him to
maintain his character. Accordingly I softened extremely towards the
Rockingham party, and talked to them of the necessity of Mr. Conway
and their agreeing, as they had done when in Administration together,
to oppose any violence against the Americans. This plan succeeded
extraordinarily, and blasted all thoughts of union between Grenville
and Rockingham, the former of whom had endeavoured to persuade the
latter to content himself with a dukedom and the lieutenancy of
Ireland. Nor was this all the success that attended the secret the
Chancellor had blabbed to me. It occasioned such a breach in and
discomfiture of the Opposition, as carried the Administration through
the session with triumph. So often did chance throw occasions in my
way, which no policy of mine could have super-induced, and which, if I
preferred vanity to truth, I might represent as the effects of profound
craft and foresight.
On the 10th of April, in consequence of Lord Temple’s summons, the
Duke of Bedford moved to address the King to order the Privy Council
to take into their consideration a recent Act of the Assembly of the
Massachusets, in which they had taken on themselves to pardon the late
insurrections, and to couple with that Act an ordinance for raising
of money. Lord Northington affirmed, that the consideration of those
Acts was still before the Board of Trade; on which the Duke of Grafton
moved the previous question. In reply to a reproach made by the Duke
of Bedford on the delays and inactivity of Administration, Grafton
decently hinted, and it was fresh in everybody’s memory, how handsomely
he had put off the American question on Lord Tavistock’s accident.
Lord Halifax rudely and inconsiderately censured Conway for not having
transmitted the orders of their Lordships to the Colonies. In fact,
the orders had not been sent to Conway; and Halifax, the accuser, had,
when Secretary of State himself, neglected orders committed to him
by the King in Council. The Duke of Richmond warmly took up Conway’s
defence, and led the way to a separation from the other part of the
Opposition. Lord Talbot gave up all the Ministers but the Duke of
Grafton. Lord Mansfield spoke finely for the motion; the Chancellor
well, for acting with spirit against the Colonies; but said it would
require great prudence to conduct that spirit. Lord Suffolk and Lord
Lyttelton supported the motion. Lord Shelburne and Lord Botetort
were against it, and Lord Townshend for it. It was rejected by the
previous question, on a majority of 63 to 36. The Duke of Richmond,
Lord Rockingham, Lord Dartmouth, Lord Monson, Lord Radnor, and Lord
Edgcumbe voting with the Court; the Duke of Newcastle, who leaned to
the Bedfords, Lord Albemarle, and others of the party, retiring. Lord
Hardwicke voted with the minority.[344]
On this schism, I again pressed Conway to join the Rockinghams on the
American question, and hinted my suspicion, not my knowledge, that
Lord Chatham might think of dismissing him at the end of the session.
Conway was enough disposed to that union; said he could not negotiate
himself, but consented that I should sound the Duke of Richmond, and
wished their faction would not insist on that unattainable point,
the total dismission of Lord Bute’s friends. I found the Duke much
incensed against Lord Temple for not having communicated to them the
late motion, and provoked that Rigby, who had negotiated with them
on Grenville’s part, and at first had waived the Treasury for him,
had at last insisted on it. I pressed his Grace to try by his cousin
Albemarle’s means to gain the Bedfords separately from Grenville.
Conway wished that junction and separation. I did not at all think
it practicable; but I hoped that the proposal, coming from the
Rockinghams, would exasperate Grenville and widen the breach between
them. The Duke approved and was eager for that alliance, but demanded
that Conway should resign first, as many of their friends were averse
to him while he acted with Lord Chatham. I advised him to try it
himself with Conway, though I told him I would not answer for the
success: but I would not undertake what I intended to impede; expecting
that Lord Chatham would not be able to continue in power, and that then
it must devolve on Conway: and choosing that the Rockinghams should
accede to him, not he go over to them. Neither happened. I did not
accomplish the junction; but I both kept Conway from resigning, and the
Rockinghams from uniting with Grenville and the Bedfords.
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
LONDON:
Printed by S. & J. BENTLEY, WILSON, and FLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
FOOTNOTES
[1] This tract is printed in the second volume of Walpole’s works. It
is written with temper, and in an agreeable style, though with less
spirit than might have been expected from the warmth of the author’s
feelings on the occasion.--E.
[2] “Dr. Lloyd was a man of very polite manners, extraordinary
composure of mind, and resignation to the Divine will. He died in 1790,
aged 64.” Nichols’s Illustrations of Literary History.--E.
[3] The title is, “The Budget; inscribed to the man who thinks himself
Minister.
Emendare tuos quamvis Faustine libellos
Non multæ poterunt, mea litura prodest.”
It is a quarto of only twenty-two pages, slovenly written, and with
little vivacity of expression.--E.
[4] Mr. Hartley was a frequent writer of pamphlets on the side of
the Opposition, chiefly on the Revenue. He was attached both to Lord
Rockingham and Mr. Pitt, and was the son of a physician, [who was also
the most eminent metaphysician of his day. Mr. Hartley had the honour
of negotiating and signing the preliminaries of Peace with America
in 1783, and of moving the first resolution in the House of Commons
against the Slave Trade. He was much respected by all parties, but his
speeches seldom found a willing audience. Tickell has parodied him with
most ludicrous effect in the “Anticipation;” and he is thus described
by another cotemporary--
“Peace to the rest, for Faction now,
To shield her sons with poppied brow,
Bids Hartley stand before me.
Goddess, the potent charm I own;
My breath is lost, my voice has flown,
And Dulness creeps all o’er me.”
_New Foundling Hospital for Wit._
He was a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, until his death in 1813,
at a very advanced age. Flattering obituaries appear of him in the
Annual Register and the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year. A clergyman
of his College, now deceased, described him to a friend of the Editor
“as an honest, high-principled man, but a dull talker, and a prosy
speaker.”--E.]
[5] Mr. Grenville was concerned afterwards in several abusive pamphlets
against Lord Rockingham and his friends. Some were drawn up by Whately,
his secretary; others he penned himself, or gave the materials.
[6] This tract (an octavo of thirty-eight pages) is agreeably and
temperately written, and unquestionably deserves to rank among the
popular pamphlets of the day. The reply, though preferred by Walpole,
is now a far less readable performance.--E.
[7] He was in the Duke of Cumberland’s family, and much attached to him.
[8] In his eighty-third year. His old age was lonely and unattractive,
being passed in the society of a few obsequious bishops and
blue-stocking ladies, with whom he kept up a sickly commerce of
flattery. His zenith had been bright: his decline was not mild.
Avarice tormented even his last hours, and it is painful to witness,
in his correspondence, how entirely he was subjected to that baleful
passion. It degraded his nature, and almost disturbed his reason, for
on no other ground can some of his acts be explained. His character
as a politician was too severely censured by his cotemporaries, but
in private life he was mean, selfish, and sordid, to an extent almost
commensurate with his great abilities and attainments.--E.
[9] When the first part of these Memoirs was written there had not
transpired the smallest idea of D’Eon being a woman, nor when that
secret was first broached did it gain credit. Some years also elapsed
before the fact was allowed, and it was some time before the dubious
person assumed the female habit, and then only by command of the Court
of France. I have not chosen to correct my narrative, not only because
the change of sex did not happen till the personage had ceased to
figure in an historic light, but because, having no notion of that
doubtful gender at the time of her eccentric behaviour, my account will
remain more natural, and does paint the general sensation produced by
her exploits. The Government here acted as I have written, totally
in the dark as to a false assumption of sex. [In 1777 an action was
brought by a surgeon named Hayes against Jacques, a baker, who had
received fifteen guineas to return one hundred guineas if it should
be proved that the Chevalier was a woman; and the evidence of that
fact was so strong that the jury decided in favour of Hayes. There
were other actions on the same point, but they were disposed of by
the Court, very properly, declaring these wagers to be illegal. Da
Costa _v._ Jones, Cowper’s Reports, 729.--The Annual Register, p. 167,
evidently copying some newspaper, says, “by this decision no less a sum
than 75,000_l._ will remain in this country, which would otherwise have
been transmitted to Paris.” The same authority says, “Aug. 16th, the
Chevalier left England, declaring that she had no interest whatever in
the policies opened on her sex.” From that time till the death of the
Chevalier he was always believed to be a woman, and dressed as such.
The post mortem examination, which is stated in the Gent. Mag. vol.
lxxx. p. 588, proved him to be a perfect male. He was never employed
after his disgrace; but having been long a spy of Louis the Fifteenth,
it was not deemed prudent to drive him to despair, and a handsome
pension was granted to him, which he enjoyed till the Revolution.
He then took refuge in England, and was afterwards reduced to great
poverty. He died in London, at a very advanced age, in 1810. There is
an interesting note on Chev. d’Eon by Mr. Croker in Walpole’s collected
Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 323. See also the article, a very partial
one, in the Biographie Universelle.--E.]
[10] The Count d’Estaign had broken his parole in India, and,
having been again taken prisoner, was kept in close confinement at
Portsmouth--a treatment of which he very unreasonably complained as
harsh and unjustifiable. His name often occurs in the history of
the American war, in which he commanded the French fleet with some
reputation. He claimed a victory over Admiral Byron. During the French
Revolution he acted a very vacillating, if not dishonest, part; and,
having given offence both to Royalists and Republicans, he was brought
to the scaffold in 1794, aged 65.--E.
[11] Mr. Legge did not write the narrative mentioned in the text. It
is the composition of the Bishop of Hereford, his intimate friend,
to whom he committed on his death-bed “the publication of the papers
that explained his case;” or, in other words, his correspondence
with Lord Bute respecting the Hampshire election. (Some account of
the Life of the Right Hon. Bilson Legge.) His object being, not, as
Walpole supposes, to fix on Lord Bute the charge of meddling with
elections, but to clear his own character from various insinuations,
by showing, from the correspondence, that his refusal to yield to
Lord Bute’s dictation in the Hampshire election, was the real cause
of his disgrace, and that he might have remained in office if he had
chosen to disgrace himself by taking the opposite course. The Bishop’s
observations explanatory of the transaction are in the spirit that
might be expected from a prelate not indisposed to translation, when
treating of the conduct of those who dispense ecclesiastical patronage.
To make up, however, for his courtesy towards his patron’s adversaries,
he heaps unmeasured eulogy upon his patron’s memory. It is now, indeed,
pretty well understood that Mr. Legge had no title to a tithe of the
merits ascribed to him by his right reverend biographer. He was a very
useful statesman. (See supra, p. 39.) His head, as Sir Robert Walpole
said of him, had very little rubbish in it. He was good-natured, and
easy in social intercourse. To exalted patriotism he never raised any
pretensions; and whatever may be the Bishop’s opinion, the friend
and boon companion of Wilkes could be no pattern of religion or
morality.--E.
[12] William Howe, brother of Richard Lord Viscount Howe, an Admiral,
and one of the Lords of the Admiralty. [Afterwards a Lieutenant-general
and K.B. He served in the American war, and was generally unfortunate.
On the death of the Admiral he became Viscount Howe. The title expired
on his death without issue, in 1814.--E.]
[13] Sir William Boothby, Bart., a Major-general and Colonel of the 6th
Regiment of Foot, died, unmarried, in 1797.--E.
[14] Prince Edward, next brother to the King.
[15] The Duke died on the 2nd of October, at the early age of
forty-four. The scanty praise awarded him in the text is far below
his due. He had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1755, and First
Lord of the Treasury in the following year. “In the ordinary business
of his office,” says Lord Waldegrave, “he shewed great punctuality
and diligence, and no want of capacity.”--Memoirs, p. 141. A strong
sense of responsibility, and a natural diffidence in his own talents,
accompanied by a dislike for business, and an indifference to
ministerial employments, gave him, at times, an air of indecision
rather ungraceful; but he could be firm on great occasions, and his
public no less than his private life was distinguished by unsullied
uprightness and honour.--E.
[16] Edmund Boyle, Earl of Corke and Orrery, married ---- Courteney,
daughter of Lady Frances Courteney, only sister of John Earl of
Sandwich. [The marriage being afterwards dissolved, he married the Hon.
Mary Monckton, who long survived him. He died in 1798.--E.]
[17] William Duke of Devonshire married Lady Charlotte Boyle, second
daughter and co-heiress of Richard Boyle, last Earl of Burlington, Lord
Treasurer of Ireland.
[18] William Ponsonby, Earl of Besborough, married Lady Caroline
Cavendish, eldest daughter of William third Duke of Devonshire. Lord
Besborough had been at Constantinople with Lord Sandwich. [He died in
1793, and was the grandfather of the present Earl.--E.]
[19] What authority Walpole had for this assertion does not appear. The
Duke was without ambition, and content to live as an English nobleman
on his splendid domain. He died in 1729.--E.
[20] Dr. Johnson, a violent political opponent, observed of him, “that
he was not a man of superior abilities, but he was a man strictly
faithful to his word. If, for instance, he had promised you an acorn,
and none had grown that year in his woods, he would not have contented
himself with that excuse. He would have sent to Denmark for it. So
unconditional was he in keeping his word--so high as to the point of
honour.”--Boswell’s Life of Johnson, vol. iii. p. 167. The same lofty
feelings characterised his public life, and caused him to be implicitly
trusted by the great party of which, without his own seeking, he was
the undisputed head. Lord Waldegrave seems to have entertained no mean
opinion of his talents.--Memoirs, p. 86. He was Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland in 1737, and afterwards remained for a time in the Cabinet; but
he accepted office with reluctance, and quitted it with disgust, for he
loved his ease and scorned all the arts of intrigue. He died in 1755,
aged fifty-seven.--E.
[21] Lord George Cavendish filled the place of Comptroller of the
Household in 1762, and for some years represented Derbyshire. He had
sufficient sense to speak respectably in Parliament. He died unmarried
in 1794.--E.
[22] Lord Frederick Cavendish had frequently distinguished himself
during the Seven years’ war as an excellent cavalry officer. In one of
the last affairs of the campaign of 1762, he gained great credit by his
spirited behaviour on the 6th of July, when, under the command of Lord
Granby, he defeated a considerable body of the French stationed at Horn
in order to preserve the communication of the main body with Frankfort,
the result of which defeat was the evacuation of Gottingen. He attained
the rank of Field-Marshal, and died unmarried at an advanced age in
1803.--E.
[23] The sarcastic tone of these remarks on the Cavendish family may
be ascribed to a family quarrel, in which the Duke of Devonshire had
sided with Horace Walpole the uncle, against Horace Walpole the nephew,
the author of these Memoirs.--Mem. i. 170, note by Lord Holland. Lord
John Cavendish had also displeased Walpole by often thwarting his plans
for the management of the Opposition, and particularly by prevailing
on General Conway to act contrary to his advice. On these occasions,
however, Lord John was actuated by the purest motives, and no statesman
of that day shewed a nicer sense of honour, or more strict notions of
public duty. His influence with the Liberal party was considerable,
and raised him afterwards to a higher post than his talents could
alone justly claim. At the time to which the text refers he was about
thirty-two years old.--E.
[24] There was shown about that time, and by that title, a Canary-bird
that performed several tricks, by pointing to cards and numbers at
command.
[25] The accomplishments of Lord Lyttelton were undeniable.
Unfortunately they were overshadowed by an infirmity of judgment, that
materially lessened the dignity of his character. He seems to have
been the easy dupe of Archibald Bower. There was often much misplaced
sentiment in his conversation. His letters teem with foolish conceits,
and the extravagant notions he entertained of parental authority made
him so severe and injudicious a father as to afford some excuse for the
gross misconduct of his son, a young nobleman whose brilliant abilities
he was almost the only person unwilling or unable to appreciate. Lord
Lyttelton died in 1773, at the age of sixty four. His public and
private life had been irreproachable.--E.
[26] Wilkes had attacked me in the North Briton, for a panegyric on
the sense of the Scots, in my catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors: a
censure I regarded so little, that when Lord Holland was engaged in his
bitter persecution of the Whigs under Lord Bute, I sent an anonymous
letter to Wilkes, pointing out a very advantageous character of Lord
Holland that I had formerly written in the paper called The World, and
inciting the North Briton to take notice both of the author and the
subject of the character. Wilkes caught at the notice, said but little
of me, and fell severely on Lord Holland, as I had foreseen he would.
[27] A similar story is related in Tacitus, of the visit paid by
Augustus to his unfortunate grandson Agrippa, in the island of
Planasia, having excited suspicions in the mind of Tiberius that caused
him to hasten the Emperor’s death.--1 _Annal._ v.--E.
[28] The account given in the Princess Dashkau’s Memoirs of this
transaction, presents strong internal evidence of the guilt of
Mirowitz. The Princess otherwise would not have taken such pains to
exculpate herself from the charge of having been his accomplice. He
appears to have been virtually insane.--E.
[29] Translator of Horace and Demosthenes.
[30] Robert Henley, Earl of Northington.
[31] There was another reason given, and probably a more efficacious
one. This was the number of suits commenced against the General
Warrants, with which he did not care to meddle.
[32] The patent of precedence could not be _over_ the
Solicitor-General, whose official rank necessarily placed him next to
the Attorney, and above all other members of the bar. The elevation of
Mr. Yorke was of greater advantage to the senior barristers than to
himself, for otherwise they could not have held briefs with him; though
the Government cared, in those days, too little for the bar to have
attached much weight to that consideration, unless they had desired to
please Mr. Yorke.--E.
[33] Philip Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, the famous man of wit.
[34] Mr. Cumberland says elegantly of the Primate, “No man faced
difficulties with greater courage, none overcame them with more
address: he was formed to hold command over turbulent spirits in
tempestuous seasons, for if he could not absolutely rule the passions
of men, he could artfully rule men by the medium of their passions.
He had great suavity of manners when points were to be carried by
insinuation and finesse; but if authority was necessary to be enforced,
none could hold it with a higher hand: he was an elegant scholar, a
consummate politician, a very fine gentleman, and in every character
seen to more advantage than in that, which, according to his sacred
function, should have been his chief and only object to sustain.”
Cumberland’s Mem. vol. i. p. 229.--E.
[35] Henry Boyle, a grandson of Roger, first Earl of Orrery. His
hypocrisy could not be very deep, if the saying ascribed to him be
true--“that he would not accept an honour whilst there was a shilling
in the Treasury.” He has been described as “a warm, sincere friend,
and undisguised enemy.” His peculiar sphere was the House of Commons,
not as an orator, but as manager; and few country gentlemen, we are
told, would continue a canvass in their respective counties without a
certainty of Mr. Boyle’s support, if petitioned against.--Hardy’s Life
of Lord Charlemont, vol. i. p. 88. He would have made an admirable
Secretary of the Treasury in corrupt or turbulent times.--E.
[36] Sir George Yonge, Bart., was the only surviving son of Sir William
Yonge, the eloquent and well-known supporter of Sir Robert Walpole. He
was appointed Secretary at War in Lord Shelburne’s Administration, and
subsequently became Master of the Mint. His last office was that of
Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He had many of his father’s parts
as well as failings, being kind, persuasive, industrious, reckless,
scheming, and dissipated. His last years were embittered by the failure
of a speculation into which he had entered in the neighbourhood of
Honiton, which borough he had long represented in Parliament. He died
at an advanced age at the beginning of the present century, and, having
no children, the baronetcy became extinct.--E.
[37] The Duke of Newcastle’s letter and Mr. Pitt’s reply are printed in
the Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 293–8.--E.
[38] Dr. John Ewer, of King’s College, Cambridge, Canon of Windsor, and
successively Bishop of Llandaff and Bangor. He published some single
sermons on public occasions, and died in October, 1774. His library was
sold by auction in 1776.--E.
[39] Dr. Carmichael was brother to the Earl of Hyndford. He had not
long to wait for preferment, nor did he long enjoy it, for he was
appointed Archbishop of Dublin in June, and died in the November
following.--E.
[40] Primate Robinson, without being eminent either as a divine or a
politician, filled his high office creditably. He had sound sense, and
a turn for business, was not ignorant of the world, and his deportment
admirably suited a great ecclesiastic. In these respects he bore a
strong resemblance to Archbishop Sutton. He exerted himself laudably
in building churches and parsonage-houses, and in maintaining the
character of the clergy. Like many of the Irish Archbishops of former
days, he brought nobility into his family, by obtaining the barony of
Rokeby, with remainder to a distant cousin; for although one of many
brothers, he had no nearer descendants. He died unmarried in 1794,
having survived his brother, Sir Thomas Robinson, whose baronetcy
eventually devolved upon him.--E.
[41] “The original contains an imputation against Sir W. Pynsent,
which, if true, would induce us to suspect him of a disordered
mind.”--Mr. Croker’s note in vol. iv. of Walpole’s Letters, p. 484, to
a letter to Lord Hertford, giving more particulars of this bequest.
[42] Frederick Lord North, son of the Earl of Guildford, married Miss
Speke, an heiress.
[43] This is very improbable, for Lord North was notoriously
indifferent to money, and careless of his personal interests.--E.
[44] Yet a clergyman of the name of Pynsent went to law afterwards with
Mr. Pitt for the inheritance, but lost his cause.
[45] An interesting account of this debate is given by Walpole, in a
letter to Lord Hertford, of the 27th January, vol. iv. p. 488, of his
Correspondence.--E.
[46] Mr. Calvert’s speech is reported in the xviTH vol. of
Parliamentary Debates, p. 44, and is the only portion of the debate
that has been preserved. It is erroneously stated to have been made on
a motion respecting the dismissal of these officers. See also the note
giving an extract from the History of the Minority, p. 291.--E.
[47] Second son of Harry, and brother of Charles, Duke of Bolton, the
latter of whom he afterwards succeeded in the title. He was in the
sea-service, [and is said to be the “Captain Whiffle” of Smollet’s
“Roderick Random.” He attained the rank of Admiral of the White, and
died in 1794. He was twice married, but left no male issue, and the
dukedom expired with him.--E.]
[48] He had had his regiment taken from him by Sir Robert Walpole.
[49] As on the Bill “for Liberty of Conscience.”--Clarendon’s Life,
continuation, p. 248. The noble historian, however, observes, that
from that time he never had the same credit with His Majesty he had
before.--E.
[50] The trial is reported in vol. xix. of the State Trials, p. 1178:
of 123 peers present, 119 voted him guilty of manslaughter; the
remaining four voted him not guilty generally.--E.
[51] An abstract of the arguments in this debate is given in the
Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 8.--E.
[52] So in the original MS.
[53] George Simon Viscount Nuneham, eldest son of the Earl of Harcourt,
was a sincere republican, and retired from Parliament because he could
not continue to vote according to his principles without offending
his father. [He became _wiser_ afterwards, and accepted the post of
Master of the Horse to the Queen, and his wife that of Lady of the
Bedchamber. Wraxall describes him as a nobleman of high breeding, well
informed, and of a most correct deportment, though of manners somewhat
constrained and formal. He died without issue in 1809, aged 63, and
was succeeded by his brother, the late Field-Marshal Lord Harcourt, on
whose death the title became extinct.--E.]
[54] Lord Sandwich and Lord Halifax.
[55] He was a favourite of the King, who made him Commander-in-chief
in Lord Shelburne’s Administration, and he was afterwards a
Field-Marshal.--E.
[56] Henry, second Viscount Palmerston, the grandson of the first
Viscount. He was a very accomplished nobleman. At this time he was only
26 years old.--E.
[57] Almon was a bookseller and political writer, as well as a printer,
in all which capacities he received frequent employment from the
extreme section of the Liberal party. He was a bustling, self-important
personage, whose zeal and fidelity brought him into a certain degree of
intimacy with several of the leading men of his day, and he was thus
enabled to collect the information which occasionally presents itself
in his works. His life of Lord Chatham, though not to be generally
depended upon as an authentic narration, contains some curious
anecdotes illustrative of the political disputes of that period, and
is in every respect superior to his life and letters of Wilkes--an
insipid, tedious, and disgusting book, particularly discreditable
to its author, as he was in possession of materials that might have
yielded both interest and instruction. Almon, in his latter days, was
unfortunate in business, and died very poor at an advanced age in
1805.--E.
[58] Sir Thomas Denison died in the autumn of this year. His memory was
honoured by an epitaph from the pen of his friend Lord Mansfield, very
long and very dull. It is said of him “that besides being conversant
with the different branches of the profession, he was in an eminent
degree master of the learning of a special pleader.” Memoirs of Lord
Chief Justice Wilmot, p. 13.--E.
[59] This enlightened judge and most amiable man was the second son
of Robert Wilmot, of Osmaston, Derbyshire, and brother of Sir Robert
Wilmot, for some years the Chief Secretary in Ireland. He subsequently
became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, but with great
reluctance, for he says in one of his letters, “The acting junior in
the commission is a spectre I started at; but the sustaining the office
alone, I must refuse at all events. I will not give up the peace of my
mind to any earthly consideration whatever. Bread and water are nectar
and ambrosia, compared with the supremacy of a court of justice.” He
retired from the Bench in 1771, and died in 1792, aged 82, leaving one
of the most spotless characters to be found on the roll of British
judges. A selection of his judgments and opinions was published by
his son. They are remarkable for elegance and perspicuity, and their
learning and acuteness cause them to be still highly prized. The memoir
of him already cited is a pleasing tribute to the memory of a good
father by a good son.--E.
[60] The resolutions were not 35 in number, but 55.--E.
[61] The late Lord Essex informed the Editor that one of the
Under-secretaries of that day had often said to him, “Mr. Grenville
lost America because he read the American despatches, which none of
his predecessors ever did.” There is no doubt that the business of
the colonies was despatched in a very slovenly manner--or, to use Mr.
Burke’s words, it was treated “with a salutary neglect;” and the many
volumes of Minutes of Colonial Affairs still preserved at the Board of
Trade, relate generally to such insignificant transactions as to be
almost ludicrous.
[62] Colonel Martin Bladen, M. P. He had in earlier life shown his
industry by a translation of Cæsar, which he dedicated to the Duke
of Marlborough, under whom he served in the German wars. He was made
Sub-comptroller of the Mint in 1714, and one of the Board of Trade
in 1717, and might have risen higher if he had chosen. He died at
an advanced age in 1746. See more of him in Warton’s notes to the
Dunciad.--E.
[63] I say _acknowledged_, because they thought it prudent, in their
quarrel with the Parliament, to shelter themselves under the banner
of the Crown, and because they founded themselves on their charters,
which were grants from the Crown. At the same time there were some men
amongst them of a more democratic spirit. It was much talked of at this
era, that a wealthy merchant in one of the provinces had said, “They
say King George is a very honest fellow; I should like to smoke a pipe
with him,” so little conception had they in that part of the world, of
the majesty of an European monarch! The Crown could not take advantage
of the Americans throwing themselves into the arms of prerogative,
because the Americans did it to shun paying taxes, which the Parliament
was inclined to grant.
[64] In January, 1769.
[65] Colonel Barré’s eloquent invective is the only portion of the
debate that has been preserved. It is directed chiefly against an
observation of Mr. Grenville, that the Americans were “children planted
by our care and nourished by our indulgence.” It has been often
reprinted. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 38. Mr. Adolphus, in
a note to vol. i. p. 171, throws doubts on the authenticity of the
report, and there is nothing in Colonel Barré’s character to make it
improbable that he may have been his own reporter, and not a very
faithful one.--E.
[66] Barbarossa and Athelstan.
[67] This tract of Dr. Browne’s, entitled “Thoughts on Civil Liberty,
Licentiousness, and Faction,” hardly deserves notice except from the
success of the author’s other works, of which it has all the faults
and none of the merits. Its failure was complete. The author committed
suicide in the following year, being then only in his 51st year. His
fame rests entirely on his tragedies, which are still favourites with
the public; but his treatises display an ingenuity and extent of
information, and occasionally a power of expression, at least equally
commendable; and it is to be regretted that those qualities were so
wasted on ephemeral publications, and directed by a mind always verging
on insanity. A long and very dull life of Dr. Browne is to be found in
the Biographia Britannica.--E.
[68] The Duchess had inherited the island from the Earls of Derby, from
whom she was descended. [Her ancestor John, the first Marquis of Athol,
having married Lady Amelia Stanley, daughter of James seventh Earl of
Derby and his celebrated Countess. The Duchess was daughter and heiress
of James, second Duke of Athol, and had married her cousin John, the
third Duke, by whom she left a large family.--E.]
[69] Afterwards Sir Grey Cooper, Baronet, Secretary of the Treasury,
and a Privy Councillor. He was generally a dull speaker, but had
considerable abilities, and was much esteemed in his department. He
died in 1801. His speech is reported in the Parliamentary History, vol.
xvi. p. 21.--E.
[70] Mr. Adolphus, in the new edition of his History, says, “The malady
with which his Majesty was afflicted, exhibited symptoms similar to
those which, in 1788, and during the last years of his life, gave so
much unhappiness to the nation. I did not mention the fact in former
editions of this work, because I knew that the King and all who loved
him were desirous that it should not be brought into notice. So
anxious were they on this point, that Smollet having intimated it in
his complete History of England, the text was revised in the general
impression--a very few copies in the original form were disposed of,
and they are now rare.” Adolphus, vol. i. p. 175.--E.
[71] Afterwards Sir William Duncan, Bart., a Scot; he married Lady Mary
Tufton, sister of the Earl of Thanet.
[72] Mr. Nicholson Calvert’s speech is given in the Parliamentary
History, vol. xvi. p. 42, where it is said that he was very
inefficiently supported by Serjeant Hewet.--E.
[73] Bishop of Gloucester. Voltaire always calls him by mistake Bishop
of Worcester.
[74] This sermon is noticed by Gray in a letter written at the
time.--Works, vol. iv. p. 49. Warburton did not carry his imprudence
so far as to print it. He had been a candidate for the see of London
in 1761, and was not a little disappointed by the preference given
to Bishop Hayter, to which he thus _modestly_ alludes in a letter
to Hurd. “You and your poet say true, ‘I will bet at any time on a
fool or a knave against the field.’ Though the master of the course
be changed, yet the field is the same, where _the race is not to the
swift_.” (Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate, &c., p. 328.) His
hopes must have been rekindled by the early death of Bishop Hayter,
only to be again dashed by the appointment of Bishop Osbaldiston; and
his ambition received a deathblow by the elevation of Terrick. His
contempt of his successful competitors appears to have been expressed
in every way calculated to be most offensive to them: even at a dinner
at Archbishop Secker’s, about this period, he taunted the Bench with
leaving the defence of the Church against its various assailants to
their chaplains, and not performing the task themselves, as Ridley and
Jewel had done of old; and quoted, at the same time, the saying of
Jewel: “Why are we distinguished from the rest of our brethren with
superior titles and riches, but that we may out-do them in the service
of the public, so that when men see our great achievements, they may
say these men deserve their superior titles and riches who perform them
thus nobly.” The prelates wisely indulged him in this freedom. He never
rose beyond the see of Gloucester, which it may be remarked he owed not
to his learning and theological reputation, but to Mr. Pitt’s regard
for Allen. Perhaps Mr. Pitt was the only statesman who would have had
the courage to place him on the Bench. Notwithstanding his friendship
with Mr. Yorke, he was neglected by Lord Hardwicke, who, he says,
“amidst all his acquaintance, chose the most barren and sapless, on
which dry plants to shower down his most _refreshing rain_.”--Letters,
p. 433. The violence of his temper, his overbearing disposition, and
the vagueness of his political creed, gave Ministers some excuse, yet
it shows an imperfection in the system of ecclesiastical patronage,
that a man of his genius and attainments should have been so often set
aside for the obscure and now long forgotten individuals whom Court
or Ministerial favour continually placed in the higher offices of the
Church. He resented this treatment to the last. It embittered a lot
which ought to have been happy, for he had wealth, rank, reputation,
and domestic prosperity; but his letters breathe an air of discontent
unworthy of a great man. He died at an advanced age in 1776.--E.
[75] At the end of 1768. It was triumphantly answered by Burke.--E.
[76] Thomas Gilbert, Esq., M. P. for Newcastle-under-Line, and
Controller of the King’s Wardrobe. See Walpole’s Letters, vol. v. p.
15.--E.
[77] The bill proposed to divide every county into large districts,
comprising a whole hundred, or at least a great number of parishes, in
order to remedy the evils caused by the distresses of the poor, and
the misapplication of the money raised for their relief. It has the
merit of being one of the earliest efforts made in Parliament for the
amendment of the Poor-laws. In 1782 Mr. Gilbert succeeded in carrying
a bill containing the main features by his plan for the incorporation
of parishes, so well known as the Gilbert Act. An account of these and
other bills, prepared by Mr. Gilbert, of the same tendency, is given in
Eden’s History of the Poor, vol. i. p. 362.--E.
[78] Humphry Sturt, Esq., M. P. for the county of Dorset, where
the family has long enjoyed considerable wealth and parliamentary
influence.--E.
[79] Query whether instead of John Pitt, it ought not to be George
Pitt, Mr. Sturt’s colleague, and afterwards Lord Rivers, and Minister
at Turin. He died in 1801.--E.
[80] This man became much more known about a dozen years after
this period. [His character has not yet ceased to be a subject of
controversy; and those who wish to know all that can be said for and
against him, may consult Mr. Hunt’s recent biographical work, and Mr.
Keppel’s Life of Lord Keppel. His generous and constant patronage of
Captain Cook has given more interest to his memory than belongs to his
political squabbles. The King’s favour, Lord Sandwich’s friendship,
and lastly his own merit, raised him among other distinctions to the
honourable post of Governor of Greenwich Hospital. He was made a
Baronet in 1773, and died unmarried in 1796.--E.]
[81] By the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham.
[82] Grenville was of Buckinghamshire.
[83] This must be confined to the following period of fluctuations in
the Administration. When it became resettled under Lord North, _who was
a Tory_, the Court’s system of prerogative predominated entirely.
[84] The præmunire clauses of the Regency Act (24 George II. c. 24)
are in the 4th and 22nd sections. By the 4th section these penalties
attach on any person having the custody of the King’s appointment of
the Council of Regency, that ventures to open the same without his
Majesty’s order, or to neglect or refuse to deliver up the same after
his Majesty’s death. The 22nd section is more important, and as it
contains the clause to which the text applies, and was the subject
of much discussion in the House of Commons, where it met with warm
opposition, even from the Speaker, Mr. Onslow, the following transcript
of it may not be without interest: “All commissions, letters patent,
orders, matters, and things to be made, passed, had, or done by the
said Regent, either with or without the consent of the said Council of
Regency, _in order_ unlawfully to set aside, change, or vary the order
and method of Government, and administration of Government settled
by this Act during such minorities as aforesaid, shall be absolutely
null and void; and every person _advising, concurring, promoting,
or assisting therein_ shall incur the penalties of a præmunire.” An
animated report of the debates on this clause is given by Walpole, Mem.
Geo. II. vol. i. p. 191.--E.
[85] This is no doubt the truth.--E.
[86] With his brother Henry Pelham, and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.
[87] Charles Fitzroy, second Duke of Grafton, Lord Chamberlain, and
K.G., grandson to Charles the Second, whom he appears to have resembled
in some of the better parts of that monarch’s character.--See the
account of him in Walpole’s Geo. II. vol. i. p. 157. He died May 6,
1757, aged 78.--E.
[88] Lionel Sackville, first Duke of Dorset, K.G., son of the
celebrated Earl. He had gone through most of the great posts, having
been successively Lord Steward, Lord President, and Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, besides being employed on several foreign missions. Walpole
describes him (Mem. Geo. II. vol. i. p. 244) as a man of dignity,
caution, and plausibility, who, when left to himself, as in his first
Lord-Lieutenantcy, had ruled Ireland to the universal satisfaction of
that people. He was less successful when his son Lord George Germaine
and Primate Stone were his advisers. He died on the 10th of October,
1763, aged 75. See more of him in Wraxall’s Hist. Mem. vol. ii. p. 415,
and in Collins’s Peerage.--E.
[89] Such a post would certainly not have suited the modest,
scrupulous, and pious author of the “Analogy,” and as his character was
well known, it is very unlikely to have been destined for him,--though
he was highly esteemed at Court. Had his friend Dr. Clarke filled the
Archbishopric of Canterbury, which Queen Caroline is said to have so
much desired, he would probably have been preferred, and with his
parts and decision of character, might have become a very considerable
man.--E.
[90] The King had then four brothers living: Edward Duke of York, and
the Princes William, Henry, and Frederick.
[91] William Duke of Cumberland.
[92] John third Earl of Waldegrave, brother-in-law of the Duchess of
Bedford.
[93] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 52.--E.
[94] The Address of both Houses.
[95] Edward Duke of York, the Princes William, Henry, and Frederick,
and William Duke of Cumberland, son of George the Second.
[96] Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, a young lord attached
to Mr. Grenville, [afterwards Secretary of State. (See more of him
_infra_.)--E.]
[97] Lord Northington.
[98] Sir Philip Yorke, then Lord Chancellor. His son, Lord Hardwicke,
kept away from this bill; Charles Yorke, the second brother, voted for
it.
[99] He might have been asked why it was more proper to establish the
Council for seventeen years, than the same Regent.
[100] Alluding to Lord Chatham and Alderman Beckford.
[101] Augustus Henry Fitzroy, third Duke of Grafton.
[102] Charles Lennox, third Duke of Richmond.
[103] Mary, fourth daughter of King George II.
[104] Charles Prince of Brunswick, husband of Princess Augusta, the
King’s eldest sister.
[105] Frederick King of Prussia, son and grandson of the daughter and
sister of King George the First.
[106] Attached to the Princess Dowager.
[107] Lord Bute told him he was in the right, and that a matter of such
importance ought to be left under no _dubiety_.
[108] See Letter from Walpole to Lord Hertford, of 5th May, 1765, in
Correspondence, vol. v. p. 23.--E.
[109] I must observe that Lord Holland has since maintained to me, that
Lord Halifax alone had gone to the King, which I could never hear but
from him: the contrary was the universal belief at the time, and what
I learned in the House of Lords, where I arrived within five minutes
after the scene I am describing had passed. It is at least evident by
the ready concurrence of the Ministers, and by Grenville’s subsequent
conduct in the House of Commons, that the measure had been concerted
with him and Sandwich; and they both in their speeches afterwards gave
indications that it had been so.
[110] Memoirs of George II., vol. i. p. 166.
[111] Charles Fitzroy, afterwards Lord Southampton, younger son of Lord
Augustus Fitzroy, and only brother of Augustus Henry Duke of Grafton.
[112] See Walpole’s Letter to Lord Hertford, of May 12, 1765, in
Correspondence, vol. v. p. 28.--E.
[113] Mr. Burrell, M. P. for Haslemere, made a Commissioner of Excise
in 1774; became a Baronet on the death of his father-in-law, Sir
Charles Raymond, and died in 1796. He was the father of Sir Charles
Burrell, M. P.--E.
[114] Mr. Morton, Chief Justice of Chester, had been long in the
intimate confidence of the Princess. He was in extensive practice, as
may be seen in Burrow, and the other reports of the day--the leader on
the Oxford Circuit, and Deputy High Steward of the University. He had
considerable reputation as an advocate notwithstanding the sneer of a
cotemporary satire, that says--
“Bewildered Morton spits and stares,
All petulance and froth.”
In the House of Commons, Mr. Morton seldom spoke except on questions
connected with his profession. The following account of a singular
scene in which he appears as the rash and unequal assailant of Pitt,
has been preserved by Mr. Butler, the great Catholic counsellor, in his
interesting and not uninstructive Reminiscences of George the Third.
On one occasion, Mr. Morton happened to say King, Lords, and Commons,
or (directing his eye towards Mr. Pitt) as that right honourable
Member would call them, Commons, Lords, and King.--The only fault of
this sentence is its nonsense. Mr. Pitt arose, as he ever did, with
great deliberation, and called to order. “I have,” he said “heard
frequently in this House, doctrines which have surprised me, but now
my blood runs cold. I desire the words of the honourable Member may
be taken down.” The Clerks of the House took down the words. “Bring
them to me,” said Mr. Pitt, with a voice of thunder. By this time Mr.
Morton was frightened out of his senses. “Sir,” he said, addressing
himself to the Speaker, “I am sorry to have given any offence to the
right honourable Member, or to the House. I meant nothing--Kings,
Lords, and Commons,--Lords, Commons, and King,--Commons, Lords, and
King--_tria juncta in uno_. I meant nothing--indeed I meant nothing.”
“I don’t wish to push the matter further,” said Mr. Pitt, in a voice
a little above a whisper, then in a higher tone, “the moment a man
acknowledges his error he ceases to be guilty. I have a great regard
for the honourable Member, and as an instance of that regard, I give
him this advice.” A pause of some moments ensued; then assuming a
look of unspeakable decision, he said in a kind of colloquial tone,
“Whenever that Member means nothing, I recommend him to say nothing.”
(Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 156.) Mr. Morton’s last speech of
any importance was on the Indemnity Bill for sending foreign troops to
Minorca, in 1775. He never rose higher than the Chief Justiceship of
Chester, though he was very near succeeding Mr. Justice Wilmot, in the
King’s Bench; and the memoirs of the latter contain a very pleasing
and well-written letter from him on the occasion. He had a house at
Tackley, near Oxford, in the church of which place he is buried. He
died on the 25th of July, 1780.--E.
[115] Lord Temple, in a letter to Lady Chatham, of the 10th of May,
(Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 308,) notices these speeches very
slightingly, and says the whole debate was of the most superlative
dulness. Edward Kynaston, of Hardwicke, in the county of Salop, the
eldest surviving son of John Kynaston, of the same place, the claimant
of the ancient Barony of Powys, was member for Montgomeryshire; he died
without issue in 1772.--E.
[116] He said to Onslow, in private, “Whatever you say to me, is fair;
but there is one man, Martin, whose words I will never forget or
forgive.”
[117] This was so entirely the motive of his conduct, that he wrote to
his brother, Lord Hertford, at Paris, that he had voted against the
Princess from the fear of being taxed with selfish views.
[118] Mr. White, M. P. for East Retford, an old member, highly
respected by the Whig party in the House of Commons.--E.
[119] She was divorced from him by act of Parliament, for his cruel
usage, and then married John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham. She was
natural daughter of King James the Second.
[120] William Henry Cavendish, third Duke. He had succeeded to the
title on the death of his father in 1762, and was at this time only
twenty-seven years of age.--E.
[121] The King’s youngest brother.
[122] The object of the promoters of the bill was to obtain a total
prohibition of the importation of foreign silks. This was not the only
instance of the Duke of Bedford’s knowledge of political economy.
Horace Walpole says elsewhere, that “he spoke readily, and upon _trade_
well.”--E.
[123] Robert Henley, Earl of Northington.
[124] Annual Register for 1765, p. 42.--E.
[125] Gertrude Leveson, daughter of John Lord Gower, and second wife of
John Russell, Duke of Bedford.
[126] Bedford House stands on the north side of Bloomsbury Square. It
has low walls in front, and a garden backwards, with a fossé to the
fields. [It was built from a design by Inigo Jones, and has shared the
fate of other great mansions in the same quarter of London.--E.]
[127] Their son was married to one of Lord Bute’s daughters.
[128] A broken wine merchant, brother of Admiral Cotes.
[129] Lord Sandwich was the head of Mr. Wortley Montagu’s family.--E.
[130] Yet the same indiscreet step did the King take again in 1783,
when he dismissed the Duke of Portland and Lord North, and what
was called _the Coalition_, before he had made sure of another
Administration; and he was for a few days in danger of being obliged to
recal those he had just removed; Lord Temple, son of George Grenville,
not daring to undertake the Administration after he had consented; and
Mr. Pitt, son of Lord Chatham, being almost as timid, and fluctuating
backwards and forwards for three or four days, before he at last
determined to accept.
[131] In a letter to the Duke of Marlborough, of the 19th of May,
the Duke of Bedford states, that he plainly charged the King on this
occasion with having “very unfaithfully kept” the conditions on which
he (the Duke) had accepted office, and urged on him the necessity of
forming an efficient Administration. The only result was, that “I left
him,” says the Duke, “as did all the rest, without being able to get an
explicit answer.”--(Mem. of the House of Russell, vol. ii. p. 560.)--E.
[132] In setting no bounds to his hostilities, Lord Holland’s
fear operated as much as his resentment. He said to me with great
earnestness, “If Mr. Pitt should not be content with taking away my
place, but should say, I will have a mark set on him!”
[133] This negotiation is not noticed in Lord Chatham’s published
Correspondence.--E.
[134] George William Hervey, second Earl of Bristol.
[135] Admiral Augustus John Hervey, brother of the Earl of Bristol,
on whose death he succeeded to the title. He was a gallant and able
officer, and had distinguished himself at the Havannah; but he was not
without some of the peculiarities of disposition that seemed to belong
to his family, and his memory subsequently suffered from the trial of
his widow, the Duchess of Kingston (the soi-disant Miss Chudleigh.) He
died without issue in 1779.--E.
[136] George Grenville was brother of Lady Hester, Mr. Pitt’s wife,
lately created Baroness.
[137] It has been said, that Lord Temple’s estate, by a flaw, was in
his own power.
[138] James Stuart Mackenzie, only brother of Lord Bute.
[139] Mr. Mackenzie resigned immediately upon learning that his
exclusion was an object with the Government and would accommodate
the King. He was a very amiable man, and no objection was ever
raised to him beyond his relationship to Lord Bute. Letter of Mr.
Mackenzie, Mitchell MSS., note to vol. ii. p. 312, of Lord Chatham’s
Correspondence.--E.
[140] Rigby swore a great oath that the King should not have power to
appoint one of his own footmen.
[141] Yet Lord Holland could never obtain any indemnification, nor
attain an earldom, though he often solicited it in the most earnest
manner, and by every interest he could employ.
[142] Thomas Thynne, third Viscount Weymouth. His mother had been one
of the daughters and co-heiresses of the famous John Earl Granville.
He had married a sister of the Duke of Portland, and was at this time
about thirty-one years old. He was a man of talents, and of very lively
conversation; though it is said that to profit by the latter it was
necessary to follow him to White’s, to drink deep of claret, and remain
at table to a very late hour of the night, or rather of the morning.
His dissipated habits, indeed, were notorious. Junius has alluded to
them with bitterness, and indulged in a profane jest at his expense.
(Letter xxiii.) His straitened circumstances made his nomination very
unpopular in Ireland, and he never went over, (Mr. Croker’s note in
Walpole’s Letters, vol. v. p. 42,) which, however, did not prevent,
if we are to believe Junius, his obtaining an outfit of £3000. His
subsequent career was very prosperous. See Wraxall’s Historical
Memoirs.--E.
[143] George Montague, Duke of Manchester.
[144] John Campbell, Marquis of Lorn, eldest son of John Duke of Argyle.