Produced by MWS, John Campbell and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example M^R.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter.
The Appendix has sections marked B to K; there is no section A, and
no section J.
As the Editor notes in his Preface, “Some, though very few, coarse
expressions, have been suppressed by the Editor, and the vacant
spaces filled up by [3 or 4] asterisks.” A few names have been
editorially omitted; these are sometimes indicated by ----
and sometimes by ****. In addition there are four ‘thought
breaks’ indicated by a line of 5 spaced asterisks.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
MEMOIRS
OF THE REIGN OF
KING GEORGE THE SECOND.
VOL. I.
[Illustration: GEORGE II.
London. Henry Colburn, 1846.]
MEMOIRS
OF THE REIGN OF
KING GEORGE THE SECOND.
BY
HORACE WALPOLE,
YOUNGEST SON OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE, EARL OF ORFORD.
EDITED, FROM THE ORIGINAL MSS.
WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES,
BY THE LATE
LORD HOLLAND.
Second Edition, Revised.
_WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTTOES._
VOL. I.
LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN, PUBLISHER,
GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET.
1847.
EDITOR’S
PREFACE.
The work now submitted to the public is printed from a Manuscript
of the late Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford.
Among the papers found at Strawberry Hill, after the death of Lord
Orford, was the following Memorandum, wrapped in an envelope, on
which was written, “Not to be opened till after my Will.”
“In my Library at Strawberry Hill are two wainscot chests or boxes,
the larger marked with an A, the lesser with a B. I desire, that as
soon as I am dead, my Executor and Executrix will cord up strongly
and seal the larger box, marked A, and deliver it to the Honourable
Hugh Conway Seymour, to be kept by him unopened and unsealed till
the eldest son of Lady Waldegrave, or whichever of her sons, being
Earl of Waldegrave, shall attain the age of twenty-five years; when
the said chest, with whatever it contains, shall be delivered
to him for his own. And I beg that the Honourable Hugh Conway
Seymour, when he shall receive the said chest, will give a promise
in writing, signed by him, to Lady Waldegrave, that he or his
Representatives will deliver the said chest unopened and unsealed,
by my Executor and Executrix, to the first son of Lady Waldegrave
who shall attain the age of twenty-five years. The key of the said
chest is in one of the cupboards of the Green Closet, within the
Blue Breakfast Room, at Strawberry Hill, and that key, I desire,
may be delivered to Laura, Lady Waldegrave, to be kept by her till
her son shall receive the chest.
(Signed) “HOR. WALPOLE, Earl of Orford.
“August 19, 1796.”
In obedience to these directions, the box described in the
preceding Memorandum was corded and sealed with the seals of the
Honourable Mrs. Damer and the late Lord Frederick Campbell, the
Executrix and Executor of Lord Orford, and by them delivered to
the late Lord Hugh Seymour, by whose Representatives it was given
up, unopened and unsealed, to the present Earl of Waldegrave, when
he attained the age of twenty-five. On examining the box, it was
found to contain a number of manuscript volumes and other papers,
among which were the Memoirs now published.
Though no directions were left by Lord Orford for the publication
of these Memoirs, there can be little doubt of his intention
that they should one day or other be communicated to the world.
Innumerable passages in the Memoirs show they were written for
the public. The precautions of the Author to preserve them for a
certain number of years from inspection, are a proof, not of his
intention that they should remain always in the private hands of
his family, but of his fears lest, if divulged, they might be
published prematurely; and the term fixed for opening the chest
seems to mark the distance of time when he thought they might be
made public without impropriety. Ten years have elapsed since that
period, and more than sixty years since the last of the historical
events he commemorates in this work.[1] No man is now alive whose
character or conduct is the subject of praise or censure in these
Memoirs.
The printed correspondence of Lord Orford contains allusions to
this work. In a letter written in 1752,[2] he informs Mr. Montagu,
that “his Memoirs of last year are quite finished,” but that he
means to “add some pages of notes that will not want anecdotes;”
and in answer to that gentleman,[3] who had threatened him in jest
with a Messenger from the Secretary’s Office to seize his papers,
after a ludicrous account of the alarm into which he had been
thrown by the actual arrival of a King’s Messenger at his door,
he adds, “however, I have buried the Memoirs under the oak in my
garden, where they are to be found a thousand years hence, and
taken, perhaps, for a Runic history in rhyme.”
The Postscript, printed in this edition at the end of the Preface,
but annexed by the Author to his Memoirs of the year 1751,
evidently implies, that what he had then written was destined for
publication. It is addressed in the usual style of an author to
his reader, and contains an answer to objections that might be
made to him. In this answer or apology for his work he justifies
the freedom of his strictures on public men, vindicates the
impartiality of his characters and narrative, claims the merit of
care and fidelity in his reports of parliamentary proceedings,
and explains the sources of information from which he derived
his knowledge of the many private anecdotes and transactions he
relates.
In the beginning of his Memoirs of 1752, he again speaks of his
work as one ultimately destined for the public. “I sit down,” he
says, “to resume a task, for which I fear Posterity will condemn
the Author, at the same time that they feel their curiosity
gratified.”
Many other passages might be quoted that imply he wrote for
Posterity, with an intention that at some future time his work
should be given to the public. “These sheets,” he remarks, “were
less intended for a history of war than for civil annals. Whatever
tends to a knowledge of the characters of remarkable persons, of
the manners of the age, and of its political intrigues, comes
properly within my plan. I am more attentive to deserve the
thanks of Posterity than their admiration.”--“I am no historian,”
he observes in another place; “I write casual memoirs, I draw
characters, I preserve anecdotes, which my superiors, the
historians of Britain, may enchase into their mighty annals, or
pass over at pleasure.”--“To be read for a few years is immortality
enough for such a writer as me.”--“Posterity, this is an impartial
picture.”
At the conclusion of his Memoirs of 1758, where the Author makes
a pause in his work, and seems uncertain whether he should ever
resume it or not, he again addresses himself to his readers in the
style of an author looking forward to publication. If he should
ever continue his work, he warns his readers “not to expect so much
intelligence and information in any of the subsequent pages as
may have appeared in the preceding.”--“During the former period,”
he goes on to observe, “I lived in the centre of business, was
intimately acquainted with many of the chief actors, was eager in
politics, indefatigable in heaping up knowledge and materials for
my work. Now, detached from these busy scenes, with many political
connexions dropped or dissolved, indifferent to events, and
indolent, I shall have fewer opportunities of informing myself or
others.”
He then proceeds to give a character of himself, and to “lay
open to his readers his nearest sentiments.” He acknowledges
some enmities and resentments, confesses that he has been
injured by some, and treated by others with ingratitude, but
assures his readers, as he probably thought himself, that he
has written without bias or partiality, “that affection and
veneration for truth and justice have preponderated above all
other considerations,” and that when he has expressed himself of
particular men with a severity that may appear objectionable, it
was “the unamiableness of the characters he blames that imprinted
the dislikes,” to which he pleads guilty. Can it be supposed, he
asks, that “he would sacrifice the integrity of these Memoirs, _his
favourite labour_, to a little revenge that he shall never taste?”
Whatever may be thought of the soundness of this reasoning, and
whatever opinion may be formed of the impartiality of his work,
it seems impossible that anything short of a positive injunction
to commit his Memoirs to the Press could have conveyed a stronger
indication of the intention and desire of the Author, that, at some
future period after his decease, this _his favourite labour_ should
be communicated to the public.
The extraordinary pains taken by Lord Orford to correct and improve
his Memoirs, and prepare them for publication, afford no less
convincing proof of his intentions in the legacy of his work. The
whole of the Memoirs now published have been written over twice,
and the early part three times. The first sketches or foul copies
of the work are in his own hand-writing; then follows what he
calls the corrected and transcribed copy, which is also written
by himself; and this third or last copy, extending to the end of
1755, is written by his secretary or amanuensis, Mr. Kirkgate, with
some corrections by himself, and the notes on the blank pages,
opposite to the fair copy, entirely in his own hand. This last copy
was bound into two regular volumes, with etchings from designs
furnished by Bentley and Muntz, to serve as a frontispiece to the
whole work, and as head-pieces for each chapter, explanations of
which were subjoined at the end.
So much for the authenticity of the present work, and obvious
intention of the Author that after a sufficient lapse of years it
should be published. Of the Author himself, so well known by his
numerous publications, little need be said, except to give the
dates of his entrance into Parliament, and of his retirement from
public life, with some few observations on his political character
and connexions.
Horace Walpole, afterwards Earl of Orford, was third son of the
celebrated Sir Robert Walpole. He was born on the 5th of October,
1717, and brought into Parliament in 1741, for the borough of
Callington. At the general election in 1747, he was returned
a second time for the same borough; and in 1754 he came into
Parliament for Castle Rising. On the death of his uncle, Lord
Walpole, of Wolterton, in 1757, he accepted the Chiltern Hundreds,
in order to succeed his cousin, become Lord Walpole, in the
representation of Lynn Regis, “the Corporation of which had such
reverence for his father’s memory, that they would not bear distant
relations while he had sons living.”[4] At the general election
for 1761, he was again returned for Lynn without opposition; but
being threatened with a contested election, and heartily tired of
politics, from which he had in a great measure withdrawn after the
accession of his friends to office in 1765, he voluntarily retired
from Parliament in 1768. In 1791 he succeeded his nephew as Earl of
Orford, and died on the 2nd of March, 1797, in the eightieth year
of his age.
The House of Commons, in which Mr. Walpole first sat, was the one
that overturned his father’s Administration. In the very first week
of the session, the Minister was left in a minority. He still,
however, kept his place, and so nearly were parties balanced,
that for two months he maintained, with alternate victories and
reverses, a contest with his adversaries. At length, secretly
betrayed by some of his colleagues, who had entered into private
engagements with his enemies, and defeated in an election
question, which had been made a trial of strength between Ministry
and Opposition, he retired from office, and became Earl of Orford.
His son Horace, though exempt from ambition, was roused by
his father’s danger, and, while the struggle lasted, took a
lively interest in all that passed. In his letters, he gives an
entertaining and not uncandid account of the Debates that took
place, and communicates freely to his Correspondent the hopes and
fears, the good and bad success of his party; his anticipations
of their strength in the different questions as they arose, are
followed by his explanations of their failures, as far as he could
account for them at the time; the desertion and falling off of
their friends are stigmatized as they occurred, with the severity
such conduct deserved; and when Sir Robert was compelled to resign,
his son records with satisfaction the successful efforts used to
secure him from the vengeance of his enemies, by disuniting the
parties coalesced against him, and rendering them odious to the
public, and hostile to one another.
But, though assiduous in his attendance on Parliament during this
period, and sincerely anxious for his father, Mr. Walpole, who
had no turn for public speaking, once and once only addressed
the House. It was on a motion of Lord Limerick, seconded by Sir
John St. Aubin, to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct
of Robert, Earl of Orford, during the last ten years of his
Administration.[5] A similar motion to inquire generally into the
conduct of affairs at home and abroad for the last twenty, had been
made and rejected a fortnight before.[6] The selection of this
occasion for his maiden speech, did credit to the judgment and
feelings of Mr. Walpole; and, though there is little force in his
arguments against the motion, there is modesty, right feeling, and
some happiness, both of thought and expression, in what he said.
The speech, as he delivered it, is preserved in his Correspondence;
and as it has no sort of resemblance to the speech published
in his name by the London Magazine, and since reprinted in the
Parliamentary History, we subjoin it for the satisfaction of our
readers. The report of it, given by Mr. Walpole himself the day
after it was made, is as follows:--
“Mr. Speaker,
“I have always thought, Sir, that incapacity and inexperience
must prejudice the cause they undertake to defend; and it has
been diffidence of myself, not distrust of the cause, that has
hitherto made me so silent upon a point on which I ought to have
appeared so zealous.
“While the attempts for this inquiry were made in general terms,
I should have thought it presumption in me to stand up and defend
measures in which so many abler men have been engaged, and
which, consequently, they could so much better support: but when
the attack grows more personal, it grows my duty to oppose it
more particularly; lest I be suspected of an ingratitude, which
my heart disdains. But I think, Sir, I cannot be suspected of
that, unless my not having abilities to defend my father can be
construed into a desire not to defend him.
“My experience, Sir, is very small; I have never been conversant
in business and politics, and have sat a very short time in this
House. With so slight a fund, I must mistrust my power to serve
him, especially as in the short time I have sat here, I have seen
that not his own knowledge, innocence, and eloquence, have been
able to protect him against a powerful and determined party. I
have seen, since his retirement, that he has many great and noble
friends, who have been able to protect him from farther violence.
But, Sir, when no repulses can calm the clamour against him,
no motives should sway his friends from openly undertaking his
defence. When the King has conferred rewards on his services;
when the Parliament has refused its assent to any inquiries of
complaint against him, it is but maintaining the King’s and
our own honour to reject this Motion, for the repeating which,
however, I cannot think the authors to blame, as I suppose, now
they have turned him out, they are willing to inquire whether
they had any reason to do so.
“I shall say no more, Sir, but leave the material part of this
defence to the impartiality, candour, and credit of men who are
no ways dependent on him. He has already found that defence,
Sir, and I hope he always will. It is to their authority I
trust; and to me it is the strongest proof of innocence, that
for twenty years together no crime could be solemnly alleged
against him; and, since his dismission, he has seen a majority
rise up to defend his character, in that very House of Commons in
which a majority had overturned his power. As, therefore, Sir,
I must think him innocent, I must stand up to protect him from
injustice--had he been accused, I should not have given the House
this trouble; but I think, Sir, that the precedent of what was
done upon this question a few days ago, sufficient reason, if I
had no other, for me to give my negative now.”
This speech of a son, in defence of his father, appears to have
been well received by the House. Mr. Pitt, who was at that time one
of the most violent against Lord Orford, said in reply, “How very
commendable it was in Mr. Walpole to have made the above speech,
which must have made an impression on the House; but, if it was
becoming in him to remember that he was the child of the accused,
the House ought to remember, too, that they are the children of
their country.” “It was a great compliment from him,” adds Mr.
Walpole, “and very artful, too.” The Motion was carried by a
majority of 252 to 245. Nothing was made of the inquiry.
For many years after the fall of Lord Orford, Mr. Walpole took
an active part in all the political intrigues and dissensions
of the times. Though he had not been treated, as he frequently
hints, with any great kindness or indulgence by his father, he
was indignant at the persecution against him, and appears to have
been warmly and affectionately attached to his memory. In his
private correspondence, he continually alludes to the mild and
prudent policy of Sir Robert, and contrasts it with the violence
and rashness of succeeding Ministers; and, as he advanced in life,
these impressions became stronger, and recur more frequently in
his writings. His political connexions were originally with his
father’s friends; and for many years he appears to have indulged
in sentiments of bitter hostility towards his enemies. When any of
them were guilty of tergiversations, either in their public conduct
or political friendships, he never fails in his correspondence to
mark their perfidy and inconsistencies, and seems to enjoy with
delight their apostasy and disgrace. But after a certain time he
became less inimical to their persons, though to the end of his
life he never ceased to blame their persecution of his father,
which, indeed, many of them subsequently acknowledged to have been
unmerited and unjust.
At the time when these Memoirs commence, the resentments he
retained on his father’s account were directed less against the
enemies who had openly opposed, than against the friends who had
secretly betrayed and deserted him. He appears, for instance,
to have been reconciled very speedily to Lord Granville, and
ultimately to have become a warm admirer of Mr. Pitt. But
against the Pelhams and Lord Hardwicke, whom he repeatedly and
unequivocally charges with treachery to his father, his resentment
was implacable.[7] In the early part of his public life, his chief
political friends appear to have been Mr. Winnington and Mr. Fox.
For the former, who died in 1746, his admiration was unbounded.
In his Memoirs, indeed, where in no instance but one he ever
confers praise unmixed with censure, he bestows on Mr. Winnington
the character of being one “whom it was impossible to hate or
to trust;” and, in a subsequent passage, he describes him “as
perniciously witty, affecting an honesty in avowing whatever was
dishonourable.” But, in his private correspondence, written
immediately after the sudden and melancholy death of Mr.
Winnington,[8] he calls him one of the first men in England, and
adds, “I was familiarly acquainted with him, loved and admired him,
for he had great good-nature, and a quickness of wit most peculiar
to himself; and for his public talents he has left nobody equal to
him, as before nobody was superior to him but my father.”
With Mr. Fox he appears to have lived on the most confidential
terms, till that gentleman accepted the Seals in 1755 under the
Duke of Newcastle. Mr. Walpole, whose inveteracy to the Pelhams was
unabated, could not pardon in his father’s friend, a connexion with
the man whom he regarded as the chief traitor in the accomplishment
of his father’s ruin. The step too was taken without consulting
him. This added to his indignation; and from that time, though he
continued in habits of intimacy with Mr. Fox, he became cold to his
interests, and, by his own account, was, on one important occasion,
active and successful in traversing his designs.
He was, in truth, during the whole of his public life, too much
under the guidance of personal feelings and resentments, and too
apt to sacrifice his friendships to his aversions; and as the
latter were often excited by trivial and accidental causes, his
political conduct, though unexceptionable on the score of interest
or ambition, was fluctuating and uncertain, and his judgment of
men variable and capricious. The affair of Admiral Byng, in which
he took a part that does credit to his feelings and humanity,
completed his estrangement from Mr. Fox. He animadverts with great
severity on the cruelty of obstructing an irregular application
for mercy with the view of embarrassing an Administration. The
questionable conduct of Mr. Fox on that occasion seems to have
deserved some such censure; but Mr. Walpole betrays his own
partiality by the comparative tenderness with which he treats the
Ministers themselves. They had it in their power to save Admiral
Byng, and justice as well as humanity required them to exert it if
they thought him either injured or innocent. Yet they chose to sign
the warrant for his execution rather than incur the odium with the
King or the public of insisting on his pardon.
About the time of his separation from Mr. Fox, Mr. Walpole appears
to have lost the influence he had acquired over the Duke of Bedford
through the intervention of Mr. Rigby; and during the latter part
of these Memoirs, detached from all political intimacies, he seems
to have had no better means of information than might have been
possessed by any other industrious and attentive member of the
House of Commons.
On the merits of the present work it would be improper to enlarge
in this place. That it contains much curious and original
information will not be disputed. The intimacy which the Author
enjoyed with many of the chief personages of the times, and what he
calls, “his propensity to faction,” made him acquainted with the
most secret intrigues and negotiations of parties; and where his
resentments did not cloud his judgment, his indifference to the
common objects of ambition rendered him an impartial spectator of
their quarrels and accommodations. The period of which he treats
was not distinguished by splendid virtues or great vices, by
extraordinary events or great revolutions; but it is a part of our
history little known to us, and not undeserving our curiosity, as
it forms the transition from the expiring struggles of Jacobitism
to the more important contests that have since engaged, and still
occupy our attention.
The account of Parliamentary Debates in these Memoirs would
alone be a valuable addition to our history. No one is ignorant,
that from the fall of Sir Robert Walpole to the American war,
our reports of the proceedings in Parliament are more barren and
unsatisfactory than at any period since the reign of James the
First. For the last ten years of George the Second, Mr. Walpole
has supplied that deficiency in a manner equally entertaining
and instructive. His method was to make notes of each speaker’s
argument during the Debate, and frequently to take down his
expressions. He afterwards wrote out the speeches at greater
length, and described the impression they made on the House. The
anecdotes interspersed in the work are numerous, and, from the
veracity of the Author, when they are founded on his personal
knowledge, they may always be received as authentic. When derived
from others, or from the common rumour of the day, he gives his
authority for them, and enables his readers to judge of the
credibility they deserve.
To his portraits it will be objected, that in general they incline
to severity, and though he professed, and probably intended the
strictest impartiality in his delineations of character, it cannot
be denied that they are sometimes heightened by friendship, and
more frequently discoloured by resentment; and on many occasions it
is evident, that they are dictated by the conduct of the persons he
describes in the last occurrence that brought them before his eyes,
rather than by a steady and comprehensive view of their merits
and defects. His observations on the Cavendishes may be taken as
an illustration of this remark. He seldom mentions the two Dukes
of Devonshire, who flourished in his time, without some sneer or
malignant reflection. The truth was, that notwithstanding his
Whiggism, he held all the members of that family in detestation,
on account of the part they had taken against him on his breach
with his uncle Lord Walpole. Yet, within a few years after
the conclusion of these Memoirs, when William, fourth Duke of
Devonshire, had bequeathed five thousand pounds to his friend Mr.
Conway, in approbation of his public conduct, he uses the following
exaggerated expressions in speaking of the legacy.
“You might despise,” he writes to Mr. Conway,[9] “the acquisition
of five thousand pounds simply; but when that sum is a public
testimonial to your virtue, and bequeathed _by a man so virtuous_,
it is worth a million. Who says virtue is not rewarded in this
world? It is rewarded by virtue, and persecuted by the bad: can
greater honour be paid to it?”
There are, indeed, few persons in his Memoirs, of whom he does
not vary his opinion in the course of his work. Marshal Conway,
the Pelhams, and Lord Hardwicke, are almost the only exceptions.
He always speaks of Marshal Conway with affection and respect; of
Mr. Pelham with dislike; of Lord Hardwicke with hatred; and of the
Duke of Newcastle with contempt and aversion. Of other persons
mentioned in his book, there is scarcely any strong expression
of commendation or censure, which in some subsequent passage he
does not qualify, soften, or contradict. It is a proof, however,
of his fairness, at least of his desire to give his readers the
impression he formed at the time of the personages and transactions
he describes, that even when he changed his opinion, he allowed his
original account to remain, leaving it to be effaced in the minds
of others, as it was not unfrequently in his own, by subsequent
reflections and events. In some instances, but rarely, he subjoins
a note correcting his first impression: more frequently he only
intimates to his readers his change of sentiment by the difference
of his language with respect to the person he had before
described. In his Memoirs of 1752, for example, he characterizes
Lord George Sackville as a man “of distinguished bravery,” and that
passage he has left as originally written, though after the battle
of Minden he appears to have had more than doubts of Lord George’s
courage. He was, in truth, as he says of himself, a bitter, but
placable enemy, a warm, but (one instance only excepted) an
inconstant friend.
It remains only to say a few words of the labours of the Editor.
He has added some notes marked (E), and in some very few instances
added or altered a word for the sake of delicacy or perspicuity. On
such occasions the word added, or substituted, is printed between
brackets of this shape [ ].
The spelling of the manuscript is peculiar, and different from
that in ordinary use. It was the intention of the editor to
have followed this orthography in the printed book, knowing it
was the result of system and affectation, and not of accident
or carelessness. He has accordingly retained it in the title of
the book, and in words of unfrequent recurrence; but, finding
such vicious and affected orthography disfigured the text, and
fearing it might perplex on perusal, he determined in common
words to revert to the usual and approved mode of spelling. The
word _to-morrow_, for instance, which Lord Orford always writes
_to-morow_, he has printed in the usual manner.
With respect to omissions, it is right to inform the reader, that
one gross, indelicate, and ill-authenticated story had been cut
out by Lord Waldegrave before the manuscript was delivered to the
Editor; but he is assured the Author himself acknowledged that
the facts related in it rested on no authority but mere rumour.
Some, though very few, coarse expressions, have been suppressed
by the Editor, and the vacant spaces filled up by asterisks;
and two or three passages, affecting the private characters of
private persons, and nowise connected with any political event,
or illustrative of any great public character, have been omitted.
Sarcasms on mere bodily infirmity, in which the Author was too
apt to indulge, have in some instances been expunged; and where
private amours were mentioned in the notes or appendix, the name
of the lady has been seldom printed at length, unless the story
was already known, or intimately connected with some event of
importance, to the elucidation of which it was indispensable.
Such liberties would be still more necessary if the remaining
historical works of Lord Orford were ever to see the light. They
have been very sparingly used on the present occasion, and appeared
to be warranted by the consideration, that, though the work had
been obviously written for publication, it was left without
directions how to dispose of it, and entirely at the discretion of
those by whose authority it is now given to the public. Greater
freedom might perhaps have been taken, without prejudice to the
Author, or to his Memoirs. But the Editor was unwilling to omit
any fact or anecdote, that had a direct or indirect tendency to
illustrate the causes, or trace the progress of any political
change or public event. The few omissions made are entirely of
a private nature, and, in general, regard persons comparatively
insignificant.
The Author had himself affixed an Appendix to the work. Some of his
notes, which were of an inconvenient length, have been transferred
to that part of the book, and some articles have been added by the
Editor. The latter are marked with asterisks, and are for the most
part taken from notes and compilations of Lord Orford himself, or
of some contemporary pen.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The reader will bear in mind, that some years have elapsed
since this was written.
[2] June 6th, 1752.
[3] July 20th, 1752.
[4] Correspondence, Feb. 13th, 1757.
[5] March 23rd, 1742.
[6] March 9th, 1742.
[7] A story of the private intrigues of the Duke of Newcastle with
Lord Carteret, during Sir Robert Walpole’s Administration, is told
by Lord Orford in his Common Place Book. When Lord Hervey was to
be made Privy Seal (in 1740), the Duke of Newcastle, to prevent
the appointment, obtained Lord Carteret’s consent to accept the
office, and moved at Council, that it should be offered to him. Sir
Robert said he did not know whether Lord Carteret (who was then in
Opposition) would take the place. The Duke said he would answer for
him. Sir Robert replied, “I always suspected you had been dabbling
there, now I know it; but if you make such bargains, I don’t think
myself obliged to keep them.” Lord Hervey had the office.
[8] Correspondence, April 25, 1746.
[9] Letter to Mr. Conway, October 13, 1764.
THE AUTHOR’S
POSTSCRIPT[10]
TO THESE MEMOIRS.
The reader has now seen these Memoirs; and though some who know
mankind, and the various follies, faults and virtues, that are
blended in our imperfect natures, may smile with me at this free
relation of what I have seen and known, yet I am aware that more
will be offended at the liberty I have taken in painting men as
they are; and that many, from private connexions of party and
family, will dislike meeting such unflattered portraits of their
heroes or their relations. Yet this, I fear, must always be the
case in any history written impartially by an eye witness: and eye
witnesses have been generally allowed the properest historians.
Indeed, the editor of Chalon’s History of France was of a different
opinion, and lamented that Thuanus, who has obliged the world with
so complete and so ample a history of his own times, should have
_confined_ himself to write nothing but what passed in his own
time, and _comme sous ses propres yeux_.[11]
Thus much I shall premise: if I had intended a romance, I would not
have chosen real personages for the actors in it; few men can sit
for patterns of perfect virtue. If I had intended a satire, I would
not have amassed so many facts, which, if not true, would only tend
to discredit the Author, not those he may censure. Yet councils and
transactions, not persons, are what I anywhere mean[12] to blame.
The celebrated Bayle has indeed offered a notable excuse for all
who may offend on the severer side. “The perfection of a history,”
says he,[13] “is, when it displeases all sects and all nations,
this being a proof that the author neither flatters nor spares any
of them, and tells the truth to all parties.” A latitude this, in
which I am not at all desirous of being comprehended; nor very
reconcileable with a notion of history which he has laid down
in another place.[14] There he says, “As the sacred history was
not the work of a particular person, but of a set of men, who had
received from God a special commission to write; in like manner,
civil history ought to be drawn up by none but persons appointed by
the State for that purpose.”
Unless State writers could be inspired, too, I fear history would
become the most useless of all studies. One knows pretty well what
sort of directions, what sort of information would be given from a
Secretary’s office; how much veracity would be found, even if the
highest in the historical commission were a Bishop Sprat. It is not
easy to conceive how Bayle, who thought it his duty to collect and
publish every scandalous anecdote from the most obsolete libels,
should at last have prescribed a method of writing history, which
reduces it to the very essence of a gazette; a kind of authorized
composition which the most partial bigots to a Court have piqued
themselves upon exposing. Roger North, the voluminous squabbler
in defence of the most unjustifiable excesses of Charles the
Second’s Administration, has drawn[15] the following picture of
State Historians. “It was hard to varnish over the unaccountable
advancement of this noble Lord without aid of the Gazetteer--but
the historian has made sure of a lofty character of his Lordship,
by taking it from the Court. We may observe in his book in most
years a catalogue of preferments, with dates and remarks, which
latter, by the secretarian touches, show out of what shop he had
them; and certainly the most unfit for history of any, because
they are for the most part not intended for truth but flourish;
and what have Court compliments to do with history?” Here I beg
leave to rest this part of my apology; and proceed to answer other
objections, which I foresee will be made to me.
For the facts, such as were not public, I received chiefly from
my father and Mr. Fox, both men of veracity; and some from
communication with the Duke of Bedford at the very time they were
in agitation. I am content to rest their authenticity on the
sincerity of such men; at the same time I beg it may be remembered,
that I never assert anything positively unless from very good
authority; and it may be observed, that where I am not certain, I
always say, _it was said, it was believed, it was supposed_, or use
some such phrase. The speeches, I can affirm, nay, of every one of
them, to be still more authentic, as I took notes at the time, and
have delivered the arguments just as I heard them; never conceiving
how it can be proper in a real history to compose orations, as very
probably counsels were not taken in consequence of those arguments
which the Author supplies; and by that means his reasoning is not
only fictitious, but misleads the reader. I do not pretend by
this to assert, that parliamentary determinations are taken in
consequence of any arguments the Parliament hears; I only pretend
to deliver the arguments that were thought proper to be given, and
thought proper to be taken.
It will perhaps be thought that some of the characters are drawn
in too unfavourable a light. It has been the mode to make this
objection to an honest Author, Bishop Burnet, though he only
did what Tacitus, the Cardinal de Retz, and other most approved
historians taught him to do, that is, speak the truth. If I have
thought such authorities sufficient, I have at least acted with
this farther caution, that I have endeavoured to illustrate, as far
as I could, my assertions by facts, and given instances of effects
naturally flowing from the qualities I ascribe to my actors. If,
after all, many of the characters are bad, let it be remembered,
that the scenes I describe passed in the highest life, _the soil
the Vices like_:[16] and whoever expects to read a detail of such
revolutions as these brought about by heroes and philosophers,
would expect--what? why, transactions that never would have
happened if the actors had been virtuous.
But to appease such scrupulous readers--here are no assassins, no
poisoners, no Neros, Borgias, Catilines, Richards of York! Here
are the foibles of an age, no very bad one; treacherous Ministers,
mock Patriots, complaisant Parliaments, fallible Princes. So far
from being desirous of writing up to the severe dignity of Roman
historians, I am glad I have an opportunity of saying no worse--yet
if I had, I should have used it.
Another objection which I foresee will be made to me, is, that
I may have prejudices on my father’s account. I can answer this
honestly in a word: all who know me, know, that I had no such
prejudice to him himself, as blinded me to his failings, which
I have faithfully mentioned in my character of him. If more is
necessary, let me add, his friends are spared no more than his
enemies; and all the good I know of the latter I have faithfully
told. Still more; have I concealed my father’s own failings? I
can extend this defence still farther. Some of my nearest friends
are often mentioned in these Memoirs, and their failings I think
as little concealed as those of any other persons. Some whom I
have little reason to love, are the fairest characters in the
book. Indeed, if I can call myself to any account for heightening
characters, it is on the favourable side; I was so apprehensive of
being thought partial, that I was almost willing to invent a Lord
Falkland.
With more reason I can avow myself guilty of the last objection,
I apprehend, and that is, having inserted too many trifling
circumstances. Yet, as this is but the annal of a single year,
events which would die away to nothing in a large body of history,
are here material; and what was a stronger reason with me, the
least important tend to illustrate either the character of the
persons or the times. The objection will particularly have weight
against the notes; I do not doubt but some anecdotes in them will
be thought very trifling; it is plain, I thought them so myself,
by not inserting them in the body of the work. I have nothing to
say for them, but that they are trifles relating to considerable
people; and such all curious persons have ever loved to read. Are
not such trifles valued, if relating to any reign of 150 years ago?
If this book should live so long, these too may become acceptable;
if it does not, they will want no excuse. If I might, without being
thought to censure so inimitable an author, I would remark that
Voltaire, who in his _Siècle de Louis XIV_. prescribes the drawing
only the great outlines of history, is as circumstantial as any
chronicler, when he feels himself among facts and seasons that
passed under his own knowledge.
If it is any satisfaction to my readers to assist them in censuring
the Author, I may say that I have spared the most inconsiderable
person in the book as little as the demigods: obliquely it is true,
for my own character could have very little to do directly in this
Work: but I have censured very freely some measures, for which I
voted, particularly the transactions about Mr. Murray, which I
must confess were carried on with an intemperate rashness very
ill-becoming Parliament or justice. Among these measures I must
not have involved the rigorous clauses in the Mutiny Bill, or the
_præmunire_ clause in the Regency Bill, for none of which, I thank
God, I ever voted!
When I said I foresaw no other objections, let me be understood to
mean objections to faults that I might have avoided, such as want
of sincerity, partiality, &c.: I hope I have cleared myself from
them. As to the composition, I fear faults enough will appear in
it: I would excuse them too if I could: but if imputations must lie
upon my memory, let my character as a writer be the scape-goat to
bear my offences!
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Vide Preface.
[11] See the Preface to the first volume of L’Histoire de France.
Paris, 1720.
[12] As personal enmity undoubtedly operates on every man’s mind
more or less, I have, in a subsequent part of these Memoirs,
specified the persons whom I did not love, that so much may
be abated in the characters I have given of them, as are not
corroborated by facts.
[13] Vide Gen. Dict. vol. 10, p. 426.
[14] Vide Gen. Dict. vol. 10, p. 336.
[15] Vide his Examen, part i. chap. 2, p. 33.
[16] The soil the Virtues like.--POPE.
CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.
CHAPTER I.
A. D. PAGE
1751. State of ministry 1
King’s return to England 3
Removal of Lord Harrington _ib._
Transactions between Spain and the South Sea Company 6
Proceedings in Parliament 8
Affair of the Queries 9
Mr. Pitt’s opposition for eight thousand seamen 12
The Westminster Election and Petition 13
History of Mr. Alexander Murray 17
Debate on Naval Establishment _ib._
Quarrel of Pitt and Hampden 18
Debate on Westminster Petition, and Breach of Privilege 19
Anecdote of Speaker Onslow in 1742 21
Mr. Murray and Breach of Privilege 22
Sir William Yonge _ib._
CHAPTER II.
1751. Debate on Army 25
Westminster Petition--Breach of Privilege 26
Quarrel of Lord Coke and the Speaker 28
Murray’s Behaviour in House of Commons 29
Debate and Proceedings on Murray’s Contempt 30
Murray Imprisoned 31
Staff Opposed _ib._
Westminster Petitions withdrawn 32
Report from Murray _ib._
Petition from Gibson _ib._
Ways and Means _ib._
Sir John Cotton 33
Report on Murray’s Case 34
Mutiny Bill 35
Lord Egmont 35
Mutiny Bill 38
Colonel Lyttelton _ib._
Colonel Townshend 39
Colonel Conway 41
Sir Henry Erskine _ib._
Charge against General Anstruther 42
Committee for the Suppression of Vice 44
General Naturalization Bill 45
Gin Bill _ib._
Subsidy to Bavaria 49
Reformation of the Calendar 51
CHAPTER III.
Petition from a Minorchese 58
Oswald 59
State of Parties 60
Naturalization Bill 61
Affairs of Nova Scotia 62
South Sea Company 63
Debate on Nova Scotia _ib._
Sir Henry Erskine’s Charge against General Anstruther _ib._
Bishop Secker 65
Gin Act 67
Charge against Anstruther 68
Prince of Wales ill _ib._
Council held at Bedford House _ib._
Gin Act 70
Death of the Prince of Wales 72
Conduct and Character of Frederick Prince of Wales _ib._
Sensation produced by his Death 78
On the King _ib._
On the Country 79
Changes in Prince George’s Family _ib._
Addresses of Condolence 80
Meeting at Lord Egmont’s 81
A Council _ib._
France and Germany _ib._
King and Princess Dowager 83
CHAPTER IV.
1751. Indulgence to Murray Revoked 86
Changes in young Prince’s Establishment _ib._
Bubb Doddington 87
Chief Justice Willes 89
Dr. Lee 90
Promotions and Resignations 91
Naturalization Bill 92
Pitt _ib._
Fox 94
Address of Condolence _ib._
New Appointments _ib._
Anstruther’s Affair 95
Breach of Privilege _ib._
Further New Appointments 96
Lord Middlesex _ib._
Duke of Cumberland 98
Pelhams Espouse the Interests of Princess Dowager 104
Resentment of Duke of Cumberland 105
Duties on Gin 106
Anstruther’s Cause _ib._
Anstruther’s Cause dropped 113
CHAPTER V.
1751. Prince of Wales Created 114
Regency Bill _ib._
Murray’s Case in the King’s Bench 115
Regency Bill 116
William Pulteney, Lord Bath 118
Character of Speaker Onslow 129
Horace Walpole 140
CHAPTER VI.
King’s Conversation on Regency Bill 157
Lord Hardwick 158
Pelhams determine to Remove Duke of Bedford and Lord
Sandwich 161
Duke of Newcastle 162
Mr. Pelham 166
Character of Lord Granville 168
His former Administration 169
His former Dismissal, and other Events of 1745 170
History of the Resignations of 1745, and some
Subsequent Transactions 172
Winnington 174
Resigners Restored to Office 175
Character of George II. _ib._
Lady Suffolk 177
Duke of Grafton 180
Princess Emily 182
Pelhams not in Favour 183
Duke of Newcastle determines to Remove his Colleagues 185
Duke of Bedford 186
Lord Sandwich _ib._
Pelhams foment Family Disputes 188
CHAPTER VII.
1751. Change of the Ministry 190
Mr. Legge _ib._
Duke of Bedford has an Audience 193
He declines Office, but with marks of Favour _ib._
Further Appointments 194
Lord Anson _ib._
Duke of Devonshire and Lord Hartington 195
Whigs Satisfied 196
Lord Holderness 198
Parliament Prorogued 200
Murray Released 201
Discovery of Lyttelton’s Letter 202
Foreign Affairs 203
Marquis de Mirepoix _ib._
Sir Charles Hanbury Williams 205
Death of the Prince of Orange 206
Princess of Orange 207
Parliament 208
Debates on Privilege _ib._
Vote of Seamen 211
The Duke’s Illness 212
Vote of Army Estimates and Debates 213
Affairs of France 216
Debate on Land Tax 218
Death of Lord Bolingbroke 220
Walpole and Bolingbroke 225
New Appointments 226
Death of the Queen of Denmark 227
Cessation of Opposition 228
Parallel between Walpole and Pelham 229
CHAPTER VIII.
1752. Reflections of Author on his Work 237
State of Parties 239
Treaty with Saxony 240
Parliament 241
Duke of Bedford opposes the Saxon Treaty 242
Debates in Commons on the Saxon Treaty 243
In Lords 244
Bill for Commuting Capital Punishments dropped 256
History of the Purchase of Scotch Forfeited Estates _ib._
Debates on Scotch Forfeiture Bill 257
CHAPTER IX.
The Scotch Bill in Lords 262
Session Ended 275
Character of Archibald Duke of Argyle _ib._
King goes to Hanover 278
History of the Factions in Ireland _ib._
Divisions in the Tutorhood of the Prince of Wales 283
Account of the Pretender’s Family and Court 284
German Alliances unlucky 288
Dissensions in Prince of Wales’s Household 289
New Governor Appointed 291
Lord Waldegrave, Governor _ib._
Dr. Thomas, Preceptor 292
CHAPTER X.
1753. Debates in Parliament 293
Affair of the Stoppage on the Silesian Loan 295
Public Paper on Silesian Loan 297
The Pretended Memorial 298
History of Lord Ravensworth and Fawcett 303
Debate on Nova Scotia 307
Fawcett’s Testimony 307
Proceedings in Lords on Fawcett’s Testimony 310
CHAPTER XI.
Seizure of Dr. Cameron 333
King of France’s Amours 334
The Marriage Bill 336
Mr. C. Townshend, and Mr. H. Conway 341
Debates on the Marriage Bill in Lords 346
Dissensions caused by the Marriage Bill 350
Execution of Dr. Cameron 353
Continuation of the Troubles in Ireland 354
Seats in Parliament offered to Government 355
Ireland 356
The Jew Bill 357
Debates on the Jew Bill 358
Ireland 362
Debate on the Proposal to Repeal the Plantation Act 364
Irish Affairs continued 367
1754. Ireland 368
Motion to Repeal Bribery Oath 369
Parliament _ib._
Death of Mr. Pelham 370
CHAPTER XII.
Motives for continuing this Work 372
Solemnity not necessary in Memoirs 374
Flattery the Vice of Historians 375
Author’s Apprehensions for the Constitution 376
Author’s Political Principles 377
Embarrassments on Death of Mr. Pelham 378
Agitations on choice of Successor in the Ministry 379
Appointment and Disappointment of Mr. Fox 381
Mr. Fox has an Audience 386
Duke of Newcastle sole Minister 387
New Disposition of Employments _ib._
New Appointments 388
Sir Thomas Robinson _ib._
Affairs in Ireland 389
New Parliament 391
Duke of Newcastle slights Mr. Legge _ib._
Origin of the War 392
Remarks on America 395
Spain 398
Defeat of Major Washington 399
Consultations on War 400
Law-suit about Richmond New Park 401
Debates on Address 403
Prince of Hesse turns Papist 405
Disturbances in the New Parliament 406
Elections _ib._
Debates on Election Petitions 407
Army Estimates 410
Debates on Army Estimates 411
Breach between Sir George Lyttelton and Mr. Pitt 414
State of Ministry and Parties 417
Projected Changes in Ministry 418
Fox made Cabinet-Counsellor 420
Debate on Mutiny Bill _ib._
Charles Townshend’s Attack on Lord Egmont 421
Deaths of Lord Gower and Lord Albemarle 422
------
APPENDIX 427
ILLUSTRATIONS.
VOL. I.
GEORGE II. _Frontispiece_.
MR. PELHAM p. 378
VOL. II.
MR. FOX _Frontispiece_.
DUKE OF BEDFORD 270
VOL. III.
MR. PITT _Frontispiece_.
DUKE OF NEWCASTLE 182
MEMOIRS
OF THE REIGN OF
KING GEORGE THE SECOND.
1751.
An nescis, Mî Filî, quantillâ Prudentiâ regitur Orbis?
_Chancellor Oxenstiern to his Son._
CHAPTER I.
State of the Ministry at the commencement of the year 1751--The
Duke of Newcastle disagrees with the Duke of Bedford--Lord
Sandwich’s subserviency to the Duke of Cumberland--Mr. Pelham
adopts his brother’s jealousies--Removal of Lord Harrington
on the King’s return to England--Some account of his
career--Conclusion of the Spanish war--Meeting of Parliament--Mr.
Pitt’s recantations--Circulation of a political paper, called
“Constitutional Queries,” brought before the notice of
Parliament--Motion for providing eight thousand seamen--The
Westminster Election and Petition--Speeches of Lord Trentham and
Mr. Fox--Debate on the Naval establishment--Quarrel of Pitt and
Hampden--Breach of privilege--Anecdote of Onslow.
It had been much expected that on the King’s return from Hanover
several changes would be made in the Ministry. The Duke of
Newcastle had, for some time before his attending the King thither,
disagreed with the other Secretary of State, the Duke of Bedford,
not only because he had brought the latter into the Ministry (his
incessant motive of jealousy,) nor from the impetuosity of the Duke
of Bedford’s temper, but from the intimate connexions that Lord
Sandwich had contracted with the Duke.[17] Lord Sandwich had been
hoisted to the head of the Admiralty by the weight of the Duke of
Bedford, into whose affection he had worked himself by intrigues,
cricket-matches, and acting plays, and whom he had almost persuaded
to resign the Seals in his favour. There had been a time when he
had almost obtained the Duke of Newcastle’s concurrence; and if
he could have balanced himself between the Duke and the Duke of
Newcastle, one may, without wronging the delicacy of his political
character, suspect that he would have dropped the Duke of Bedford’s
confidence. But a blind devotion to the Duke’s inclinations, which
he studied in all the negotiations[18] of the war and the peace,
protracting the one to flatter his command, and hurrying on the
other when no part of Flanders was left for the Duke’s army, and
himself was impatient to come over to advance his interest in the
Cabinet, this had embroiled him with the Duke of Newcastle, and
consequently cemented his old attachments.
Mr. Pelham had, according to his manner, tried to soothe where
his brother provoked, been convinced by trifles that his brother’s
jealousy was solidly grounded, adopted his resentments, and
promoted them. While the Court was at Hanover, Lord Sandwich had
drawn a great concourse of the young men of fashion to Huntingdon
races, and then carried them to Woburn to cricket-matches made
there for the entertainment of the Duke. These _dangerous_
practices opened Mr. Pelham’s eyes; and a love affair between
one of his [relations] and a younger brother[19] of the Duchess
of Bedford fixed his aversion to that family. At this period the
Duke of Richmond[20] died, who besides the Duchess and his own
dignity, loved the Duke of Newcastle--the only man who ever did.
The Pelhams immediately offered the Mastership of the Horse to the
Duke of Bedford, which he would have accepted, had they left him
the nomination of Lord Sandwich for his successor.
The King came over: but though the brothers were resolved to
disagree with their associates in the Ministry, they could not
resolve to remove them; none of the great offices were filled up
but the Lieutenancy of Ireland, from which Lord Harrington[21] was
removed in the most unworthy manner. He had raised himself from
a younger brother’s fortune to the first posts in the Government,
without either the talent of speaking in Parliament, or any
interest there. He had steered through all the difficulties of the
Court and changes of Ministry, with great dexterity, till, in the
year 1746, notwithstanding all his personal obligations to the
King, he was the first man who broke into his closet at the head
of those insulting and disloyal resignations that were calculated
and set on foot by the Pelhams, in the very heat of the rebellion,
to force their master, by a general desertion of his servants, to
abandon Lord Granville, whom he was recalling into the Ministry.
The King had brooded over this ingratitude, not with much hope of
revenging it, but as he sometimes resented such indignities enough
to mention them, the Pelhams sacrificed Lord Harrington to their
master, astonished at their complaisance, in order to bargain
for other victims on his part, which they would have forced, not
purchased, if there had been any price necessary but their own
ingratitude. Lord Harrington was removed, and the Lieutenancy of
Ireland again heaped on the Duke of Dorset, then President of the
Council.
January 10.--The South Sea Company having consented to receive
the hundred thousand pounds on the new treaty with Spain in lieu
of all their demands, thought they had a title to some favour
with the King, and accordingly came to a resolution to address
him, to be pleased to continue their Governor, and to take into
his consideration the state of the Company. To this message they
received an answer in general terms. They addressed again for one
more particular: they were told in very harsh phrase, that the King
had obtained for them from the Crown of Spain all that was possible
to be obtained.
This was the conclusion of the Spanish war; fomented (to overturn
Sir Robert Walpole) by Lord Granville, who had neglected it for
a French war; by Lord Sandwich, who made a peace that stipulated
for no one of the conditions for which it was undertaken; by Pitt,
who ridiculed and condemned his own orations for it, and who
declared for a peace on any terms; and by the Duke of Newcastle,
who betrayed all the claims of the merchants and the South Sea
Company, when he had got power, to get more power by sacrificing
them to the interests of Germany and the Electorate. As there never
was a greater bloom of virtue and patriotism than at that period,
if posterity should again see as fair a show, it will be taught to
expect as little fruit.
17th.--The Parliament met. The King acquainted the Houses with the
new treaties concluded with Spain for terminating our differences,
and with Bavaria for securing the peace of the Empire (by the
meditated election of the Archduke Joseph for King of the Romans,
was understood). The Address was moved in the House of Lords by
the Earl of Northumberland[22] and the Lord Archer; and in the
Commons by Horace Walpole[23] (son of the late Earl of Orford) and
Mr. Probyn. Lord Egmont opposed the Address, on the approbation it
gave to the treaties, and the subsidies it promised to pay, and
proposed leaving out many of the paragraphs. The House sat till
near eight; the speakers against the Address were Mr. Henley, Mr.
Bathurst, Sir John Cotton, Mr. Vyner, Mr. Martin, Mr. Doddington,
Mr. Potter, and Dr. Lee; for it, Mr. W. Pitt, Mr. Pelham, Sir J.
Barnard, General Oglethorpe, Horace Walpole senior, and Mr. Fox.
Mr. William Pitt recanted his having seconded the famous question
for the _no search_ in the last Parliament; said it was a mad and
foolish motion, and that he was since grown ten years older and
wiser: made a great panegyric on the Duke of Newcastle’s German
Negotiations of this summer, and said he was himself so far from
wishing to lessen the House of Commons, that whatever little
existence he had in this country, it was owing to the House of
Commons. These recantations of his former conduct were almost all
he had left to make. On his first promotion he had declared against
secret committees, and offered profuse incense to the manes and
friends of Sir Robert Walpole. He now exploded his own conduct in
contributing to kindle the Spanish war, and hymned that Hanoverian
adulation in the Duke of Newcastle, which he had so stigmatized
in Lord Granville. Indeed, the Duke of Newcastle had no sooner
conquered his apprehensions of crossing the sea, than he adopted
all Lord Granville’s intrepidity in negotiation. The Address was
carried by 203 to 74.
The morning the Parliament met, great numbers of treasonable papers
were dispersed by the Penny Post, and by being dropped into the
areas of houses, called “Constitutional Queries,”[24] levelled
chiefly at the Duke, whom they compared to Richard III. As it was
the great measure of the Prince’s Opposition to attack his brother,
the Jacobites bore but half the suspicion of being authors of this
libel.
On the 22nd the Duke of Marlborough[25] moved in the House of Lords
to have the Queries burnt by the hangman, which was agreed to, and
they communicated their resolution to the Commons at a conference
in the Painted Chamber. Sir John Strange, Master of the Rolls, in
a lamentable discussion, seconded by the Attorney-General, Rider,
moved to concur with the Lords. Sir Francis Dashwood, after much
disclaiming of Jacobitism, objected to the word _false_ in the
resolution, as he thought some of the charges in the Queries not
ungrounded, particularly in the complaint against alarm-posts, and
the dismission of old officers, an instance of which he quoted in
the person of his uncle, the Earl of Westmoreland, who had been
removed seventeen years before, and under the administration of
Sir Robert Walpole. General Handasyde, a blundering commander on
the Prince’s side, spoke strongly against the Queries; and Colonel
Richard Lyttelton, with a greater command of absurdity, spoke to
the same points as Sir Francis Dashwood; like him, disclaimed
Jacobitism, and wished that “even a worse punishment than burning
could be found out for the paper;” told a long story of Colonel
George Townshend’s having been refused leave to stay in Norfolk,
“though he was cultivating the Whig interest;” and an alarming
history of the Duke’s having placed two Sentinels to guard the
ruins of Haddock’s Bagnio and the Rummer Tavern at Charing-cross,
which had been burnt down; and then ran into a detail of the abuse
on the King about the Hanover troops in the year 1744, when his own
relations and friends had been at the head of the Opposition.
Mr. Pelham answered in a very fine speech, and said, he had a new
reason for condemning this paper, as he saw it already had had part
of its intended effects, in catching honest minds. Lord Egmont made
an extremely fine and artful speech, “That in general he disliked
such methods of proceeding against libels, for two reasons; that he
did not approve of Parliament taking the business of the law upon
them, and because such notice only tended to spread the libel more;
but that the present was of so evil a nature, that no censure could
be too severe, especially as it was calculated to sow division
between two brothers of the Blood Royal, where he was persuaded and
hoped there was no such thing: that if there were any grounds for
the accusations in the paper, he should choose a more proper day to
inquire into them, and would; that as to the case of the Hanover
troops,[26] he did not know why, as the same Ministry continued,
_that_ satire was left so unpunished, this so condemned; or why the
author of this was so sought after, the authors of the other so
promoted.” The resolution was agreed to, _nemine contradicente_,
and an Address presented to the King, to desire him to take
effectual means to discover the author, printers, and publishers of
the Queries, which were burnt on the 22nd.
The same day, Lord Barrington[27] moved that the number of seamen
should be but eight thousand for the present year. Nugent, Lord
Egmont, Potter, and the Opposition, declared for the old number of
ten thousand, on a supposition that the view of the Ministry was to
erect the land army into our principal force. W. Pitt, who, with
his faction, was renewing his connexions with the Prince of Wales,
as it was afterwards discovered, and impatient to be Secretary of
State, which he expected to carry, as he had his other preferments,
by storm; and the competition between him and Fox, the principal
favourite of the Duke, breaking out more and more, said (without
previously acquainting Mr. Pelham with his intention) that if the
motion had been made for ten thousand, he should have preferred the
greater number. Potter immediately moved for them, and Pitt agreed
with him. Mr. Pelham seemed to acquiesce; but when the question was
put, Lord Hartington, a favourite by descent of the old Whigs, to
show Pitt that he would not be followed by them if he deserted Mr.
Pelham, divided the House, and the eight thousand were voted by 167
to 107; only Pitt, Lyttelton, the three Grenvilles, Colonel Conway,
and eight more, going over to the minority.
On the 28th, Mr. Cooke, a pompous Jacobite, and Member for
Middlesex, presented a long petition from several of the Electors
of Westminster against Lord Trentham. This election and scrutiny
had taken up above five months of the last year. The resentment of
the Jacobites against Lord Gower for deserting their principles
had appeared in the strongest colours, on the necessity of his
son being rechosen, after being nominated into the Admiralty.
They had fomented a strong spirit against Lord Trentham, on his
declining to present a petition to the King in favour of a young
fellow[28] hanged for a riot; and on his countenancing a troop of
French players[29] in the little theatre in the Haymarket. Lord
Egmont, who was intriguing to recover his interest in Westminster,
had set up a puppet, one Sir George Vandeput; and the Pelhams were
suspected of not discouraging the opposition. On Lord Trentham’s
success, a petition had been framed in such treasonable terms, that
Mr. Cooke himself waved undertaking it, and this new one was drawn
up: Sir John Cotton opposed the party’s petitioning at all, but did
not prevail. Both Mr. Cooke and the petition severely abused the
High Bailiff (whose practice, as a lawyer, the Jacobites totally
destroyed), and who, as Mr. Cooke said, had attempted to violate
the maiden and uncorrupted city of Westminster.
Lord Trentham,[30] who had never spoken in Parliament before,
replied with great manliness and sense, and spirit, reflecting
on the rancour shown to him and his family, and asserting
that the opposition to him had been supported by perjury and
by subscriptions, so much condemned and discountenanced by the
Opposition, when raised to maintain the King on the Throne during
the last Rebellion. In answer to the censure on the High Bailiff,
he produced and read a letter from Mr. Cooke to the High Bailiff,
while he was believed in their interest, couched in the strongest
terms of approbation of his conduct and integrity. This was
received with a loud and continued shout. It was long before Mr.
Cooke could get an opportunity of replying, and longer before he
had anything to reply. He reflected on Lord Trentham’s not telling
him of this letter, and justified it. Lord Egmont talked of his
own obligations to Westminster, called Mr. Cooke’s letter honest
flattery, to encourage a man to do his duty; and said that the
opposition to Lord Trentham was the sense of the nation, expressed
against the Administration.
Mr. Fox replied with great wit and abilities, and proved that of
all men in England Lord Egmont had least obligation to Westminster,
which had rejected him at the last general election, and exposed
the doctrine of honest flattery, which was only given, when the
person it was given to was thought honest, by acting as his
flatterer desired. Mr. Fox was apt to take occasion of attacking
Lord Egmont, the champion against the Duke, and because, after Mr.
Fox had managed and carried through his contested election, Lord
Egmont had not given one vote with the Court. Mr. Cooke moved to
hear the petition that day fortnight; Lord Trentham for the morrow
se’nnight, which was agreed to. Lord Duplin then moved to call in
the High Bailiff to give the House an account how he had executed
the orders which he received last February of expediting the
scrutiny as much as possible. He came, pleaded many obstructions,
and being asked why he had not complained, said, he had feared
being taxed with putting an end to the scrutiny.
Lord Trentham then desired he might be asked, if he remembered any
threats used to him. Lord Egmont objected to the question, and the
High Bailiff was ordered to withdraw. A long debate ensued, though
Mr. Fox proposed to put the question in these less definite words,
“how he had been obstructed.” At last it was proposed that the
Speaker should decide, whether, supposing the High Bailiff accused
any person, they could be heard to their defence, consistently
with the orders of the House, before hearing the merits of the
petition. The oracle was dumb--at last being pressed, it said, “I
wish, without using many words, I could persuade gentlemen to go
upon some other matter.” Lord Trentham finding the Speaker against
him, and the Ministry and one or two of the old Whigs inclined to
give it up, gave it up with grace and propriety. But the young
Whigs, headed by Lord Coke, grew very riotous, and though the
Speaker declared still more fully against them, they divided the
House, and carried it by 204 to 106 to call in the High Bailiff,
who, returning to the bar, charged Crowle, Sir George Vandeput’s
Counsel, with triumphing in having protracted the scrutiny, and
with calling the orders of the House _brutum fulmen_. Being further
questioned, he said he had been scandalously abused; had received
papers threatening his life; had been charged with running away
to Holland; had been pursued into the vestry after declaring the
majority for Lord Trentham; had been stoned there, and that one
gentleman at the head of the mob had asked them, if nobody had
courage enough to knock the dog down, and that he ought to be
killed. Being asked who this was, he named Mr. Alexander Murray,
brother of Lord Elibank; both such active Jacobites, that if the
Pretender had succeeded, they could have produced many witnesses to
testify their zeal for him; both so cautious, that no witnesses of
actual treason could be produced by the Government against them:
the very sort of Jacobitism that has kept the cause alive, and kept
it from succeeding. Mr. Murray, with Crowle and one Gibson, an
upholsterer, were ordered to attend on the Thursday following with
the High Bailiff, to have his charge made out.
29th.--The report for the eight thousand seamen was made from the
committee, and debated again till past eight at night, when it was
agreed to by 189 to 106. Mr. W. Pitt spoke with great affectation
of concern for differing with Mr. Pelham, protested he had not
known it was his measure (which Mr. Pelham made many signs of
not allowing), and that it was his fear of Jacobitism which had
made him differ on this only point with those with whom he was
determined to lead his life. He called the fleet our standing
army, the army a little body of military spirit, so improved by
discipline, that that discipline alone was worth five thousand
men; made great panegyrics on Mr. Pelham (so did Lyttleton and
George Grenville), and concluded with saying, “I do not believe the
majority of this House like eight thousand better than ten.”
The times were changed! Men who remembered how Sir Robert Walpole’s
fears of the Pretender and his Spithead expeditions were ridiculed
by his opponents, admired Mr. Pitt’s humility and conviction, who
was erecting a new opposition on those arguments.
He was attacked by Hampden, who had every attribute of a buffoon
but cowardice, and none of the qualifications of his renowned
ancestor but courage. He drew a burlesque picture of Pitt and
Lyttleton under the titles of _Oratory_ and _Solemnity_, and
painted in the most comic colours what mischiefs rhetoric had
brought upon the nation, and what emoluments to Pitt. Pitt flamed
into a rage, and nodded menaces of highest import to Hampden, who
retorted them, undaunted, with a droll voice that was naturally
hoarse and inarticulate. Mr. Pelham interposed, and, according to
his custom, defended Pitt, who had deserted him; gave up Hampden,
who had supported him. It was not unusual for Pitt to mix the
hero with the orator; he had once blended those characters very
successfully, when, having been engaged to make up a quarrel
between his friend Hume Campbell[31] and Lord Home, in which the
former had kissed the rod, Pitt within very few days treated the
House with bullying the Scotch declaimer. On the present occasion,
the Speaker insisted on the two champions promising to proceed no
farther, with which Punch first, and then Alexander the Great,
complied.
31st.--Mr. Crowle appeared with the High Bailiff at the bar of
the House, and owned the words charged on him, but endeavoured
to prove that the protraction was meant for the benefit of his
client; and that the _brutum fulmen_ was applied to those who urged
him with the orders of the House impertinently. He showed great
deference and submission to the House. It was then debated till six
o’clock, whether any witnesses should be called in against him,
and carried by 204 to 138, that there should. Three were called,
who proved the words. Lord Hartington, (whose head being filled
with the important behaviour of the Cavendishes and Russels at
the Revolution, was determined that it should be the fault of the
times, not his, if his conduct did not always figure equally with
theirs in solemnity), moved, with a pomp of tragic tenderness, and
was seconded by Lord Coke, who abused the independent electors,
“that Mr. Crowle had wilfully protracted the scrutiny, and showed
contempt of the House.”
This was opposed;[32] the lawyers pleaded _in earnest_ for their
brother, and the Ministry were inclined to give it up, till Lord
Egmont made a furious speech for Crowle, and called the Whigs
the Rump of their old party. Mr. Fox took this up warmly in an
exceedingly fine speech of spirit and ridicule, and concluded with
telling Lord Egmont, that though he intended to have interceded
for Crowle (who had interest at Windsor, where Fox was chosen), he
must now be for this resolution; but yet should show compassion for
Mr. Crowle, if it were only on his having such a friend. The House
divided at eleven at night, and the resolution passed by 181 to
129. Lord Hartington then offered to the House to take Mr. Crowle
into custody, or to reprimand him immediately; the latter of which
was chosen for him by Mr. Fox, and he was reprimanded on his knees
by the Speaker. As he rose from the ground,[33] he wiped his knees,
and said, “it was the dirtiest house he had ever been in.”
The Whigs took pleasure in copying the precedents,[34] that had
been set them at the famous Westminster Election, in 1742; and
the Speaker had the satisfaction both times of executing the
vengeance of either party, and indulging his own dignity. On the
former occasion, his speech to the kneeling Justices was so long
and severe, that the morning it was printed, Sir Charles Hanbury
Williams complained to him of the printer’s having made a grievous
mistake--“Where?--how? I examined the proof sheet myself!” Sir
Charles replied, “in the conclusion he makes you say, _more_ might
have been said; to be sure you wrote it, _less_ might have been
said.”
The King on these votes commended the young men, and said to the
Duke of Newcastle before the Duke of Bedford, “they are not like
those puppies who are always changing their minds. Those are your
Pitts and your Grenvilles, whom you have cried up to me so much!
You know I never liked them.”
February 1.--Mr. Murray appeared at the bar of the House of
Commons, and heard the High Bailiff’s charge. He asserted his
innocence; said he should deny nothing that was true; that
much was false; smiled when he was taxed of having called Lord
Trentham and the High Bailiff rascals, and desired Counsel, which,
after a debate of two hours, was granted to him, and a respite
till the Wednesday following, upon condition of his being taken
into custody, and giving bail for his appearance. Gibson, the
upholsterer, was then brought to the bar, witnesses for and against
him heard, and the words proved, though some members[35] of the
House, who had been present at the conclusion of the scrutiny, did
not hear him speak them. Sir William Yonge moved a resolution of
his guilt, which was carried by 214 to 63, and he was committed to
Newgate.
Sir William Yonge[36] was still employed in any government
causes where the Ministry wanted to inflict punishments and
avoid odium--their method of acquiring merit! His vivacity and
parts, whatever the cause was, made him shine, and he was always
content with the lustre that accompanied fame, without thinking of
what was reflected from rewarded fame--a convenient ambition to
Ministers, who had few such disinterested combatants! Sir Robert
Walpole always said of him, “that nothing but Yonge’s character[37]
could keep down his parts, and nothing but his parts support his
character.”
FOOTNOTES:
[17] William, second son of George the Second, Commander of the
army in Flanders, and Duke of Cumberland. He was, by an affectation
of adopting French usages, called emphatically “The Duke,” during
the latter years of George the Second and the beginning of the
reign of George the Third.--E.
[18] Lord Sandwich had been Plenipotentiary at the Conference at
Breda in 1747, and concluded the Peace at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1749.
[19] Richard Levison Gower.
[20] The second son of that name, Knight of the Garter and Master
of the Horse, died Aug. 8, 1750, aged 49.
[21] Yesterday morning (Dec. 8, 1756), died at his house in the
Stable-yard, St. James’s, the Right Hon. William Stanhope, Earl of
Harrington, a General of his Majesty’s Forces, a Governor of the
Charter-house, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and one of the Lords
of his Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council.
His Lordship served in the reign of Queen Anne in Spain, being
Captain of a Company, with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, in the
third regiment of Guards; and in the end of the year 1710 was
constituted Colonel of a regiment of Foot.
On the accession of his late Majesty he was appointed Colonel of
a regiment of Dragoons, and returned to Parliament for the town
of Derby; and in 1715 was made Colonel of a regiment of Horse. On
the 19th of August, 1717, he was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary to the King of Spain.
November 17, 1718, he was appointed Envoy and Plenipotentiary to
the Court of Turin; from whence he returned to Paris; and, May 31,
1719, set out for the Duke of Berwick’s camp before Fontarabia.
After Admiral Byng had destroyed the greatest part of the Spanish
fleet, Colonel Stanhope procured an English squadron to fall
upon the port of St. Anthony in the Bay of Biscay, in which were
one Spanish man-of-war of seventy guns, and two of sixty, newly
built, with an incredible quantity of timber, pitch, and tar, and
other naval stores, for building more; all which were destroyed
by the English squadron, assisted by a detachment which the Duke
of Berwick spared from his army, at the solicitation of Colonel
Stanhope, who contrived the design, and, serving as a volunteer in
the enterprise, principally contributed to the execution of it;
where, finding it necessary to encourage and animate troops which
had not been used to enterprises by sea, he was the first that
leaped into the water when the boats approached the shore.
At the end of that war he was declared a Brigadier-General, and
returned with the same character as before to Spain. But the
Spaniards having laid siege to Gibraltar, he left Madrid on the
11th of March, 1726, and his late Majesty was pleased, in May,
1727, following, to appoint him Vice-Chamberlain of his Household,
and to command him to be sworn of his Privy Council.
After his present Majesty’s accession, he was nominated first
Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to the Congress at Soissons; and
September 9, 1729, declared Ambassador to the King of Spain. On
the 20th of November following, he was advanced to the degree of a
Peer of Great Britain, by the title of Lord Harrington; and on the
13th of June, 1730, was constituted principal Secretary of State.
December 18, 1735, he was declared Major-General of the Horse; and
Lieutenant-General, July 17, 1739. His Lordship resigned the Seals,
February 12, 1741-2, and the next day was declared Lord President
of the Council. February 9, 1741-2, he was raised to the dignity
of a Viscount and Earl of Great Britain, by the title of Viscount
Petersham, Earl of Harrington.
On the resignation of Earl Granville, October 18, 1744, his
Lordship was again appointed principal Secretary of State; and
in 1745 attended on his Majesty to Hanover. February 10, 1745-6,
his Lordship resigned the Seals; but his Majesty was pleased to
re-deliver them to him four days after.
November 22, 1746, his Lordship was declared Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, in the room of the Earl of Chesterfield, in which post he
continued until 1771. March 22, 1746-7, he was constituted General
of his Majesty’s Foot forces.
His Lordship’s rare accomplishments were such, that it is difficult
with justice to determine whether he deserved most our admiration
for his political integrity in the Cabinet, or for his military
conduct in the field; whether he excelled most as a perfectly
fine gentleman, or as a man of letters. But, without flattery, he
deserved to have it said of him--
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix’d in him, that Nature might stand up,
And say to all the world, “This was a man!”
His Lordship married Anne, daughter and heir of Colonel Edward
Griffith, one of the Clerks Comptrollers of the Green Cloth,
by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Dr. Thomas Laurence, first
Physician to Queen Anne; and by her had two sons, twins, born
December 18, 1719; but their mother died in child-bed. Thomas, the
younger, was in August, 1741, appointed Captain in Honeywood’s
Dragoons, and going over sea, died February, 1742-3.
William, Viscount Petersham, the eldest son, succeeds his Lordship
in honour and estate; and thereby makes a vacancy in the House of
Commons for Bury St. Edmunds. [Extracted from some printed paper
of 1756, and annexed to the MS. as a note by the author of the
Memoirs.]
[22] Sir Hugh Smithson had married the Lady Elizabeth Seymour,
only surviving child of Algernon, Duke of Somerset, and heiress of
the house of Percy, on which account they were created Earl and
Countess of Northumberland.
[23] The author of these Memoirs.
[24] Vide the Appendix, B. [A.] The author of these Memoirs, in a
MS. note on Doddington’s Diary, asserts, that the Constitutional
Queries were generally ascribed to Lord Egmont.--E.
[25] Charles Spencer, Duke of Marlborough and Earl of Sunderland,
Knight of the Garter and Lord Steward.
[26] In the year 1744, besides several other libels and ballads,
had been published two pamphlets that made much noise, called
“The Case of the Hanover Troops,” and the Vindication of that
Case, supposed to be written by or under the direction of Pitt,
Lyttelton, Doddington, &c. The first was answered by old Horace
Walpole, in a pamphlet called “The Interest of Great Britain
steadily pursued.”
[27] William Barrington Shute, Viscount Barrington, one of the
Lords of the Admiralty.
[28] Bosavern Penlez, condemned for stealing linen, and demolishing
a bagnio in the Strand. Fielding wrote a pamphlet to justify the
condemnation of him.
[29] During Sir Robert Walpole’s administration, a troop of French
Players had been brought over, but the audience and populace would
not suffer them to perform. Another company came over in 1750, but
with no better success. Several young men of quality had drawn
their swords in the riot, endeavouring to support them: Lord
Trentham’s being present had been exaggerated into his being their
chief protector. French Players had been no uncommon spectacle in
England. The foundation of the late animosity against them was
this. The opposition to the Court had proceeded so far, as to be
on the point of ridiculing the King publicly on the stage of the
little theatre in the Haymarket, in a dramatic satire, called
the “Golden Rump,” written by Fielding. Sir R. Walpole, having
intelligence of this design, got the piece into his hands--[I have
in my possession the imperfect copy of this piece, as I found it
among my father’s papers after his death]--and then procured the
act to be passed for regulating the stage, by which all theatres
were suppressed but such as should be licensed by the Lord
Chamberlain. This provoked the people so much, that the French
company having a licence granted soon after, when several English
companies were cashiered, it was made a party point to silence
foreign performers.
[30] Granville Leveson Gower, eldest son of John, Earl Gower.--A.
Created Marquis of Stafford in 1786. Died, 1803.--E.
[31] Alexander Hume Campbell, brother to the Earl of Marchmont, a
very masterly speaker and able lawyer, had been Attorney-General
to the Prince of Wales, which post he resigned when his Royal
Highness erected his last Opposition, and was supposed to have a
considerable pension, on which he neglected the House of Commons,
giving himself up entirely to his profession.
[32] Nugent very absurdly told the House, “that he could not help
recollecting the epitaph on Lord Brooke, _Here lies the friend of
Sir Philip Sidney_, which he begged leave to apply, by acquainting
them that Mr. Crowle was the friend of that excellent man, Lord
Lonsdale, who then lay dying, and that he hoped they would not
disturb his death-bed by any harsh treatment of his friend.” Henry,
the last Lord Viscount Lonsdale, died soon after this. He had been
Constable of the Tower and Lord Privy Seal, which he resigned with
outgoing into Opposition. He was a man of very conscientious and
disinterested honour, a great disputant, a great refiner--no great
genius. Nugent published two or three poems on his virtues.
[33] Crowle was a noted punster. Once, on a circuit with Page, a
person asked him if the Judge was not just behind? He replied, “I
don’t know; but I am sure he never was _just_ before.”
[34] When Sir Charles Wager and Lord Sundon were declared illegally
chosen by military influence, on the prevailing of the opposition
against Sir Robert Walpole; and the Justices of Peace who had
called in the soldiers were committed at five o’clock in the
morning, the Speaker having been seventeen hours in the chair.
[35] Sir John Cotton and Sir Charles Fynte.
[36] August 10, 1755.--Sunday died at his seat at Escott, near
Honiton in Devonshire, the Right Hon. Sir William Yonge, Bart.,
LL.D., F.R.S., Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, one
of his Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, and Lord Lieutenant
and Custos Rotulorum of Carnarvonshire. He was chosen to represent
the borough of Honiton in the sixth Parliament of Great Britain,
which was summoned to meet on the 10th of May, 1722, and served
for that borough in the five succeeding Parliaments; for though
chosen for Ashburton in the eighth, and Tiverton in the seventh and
tenth, he each time made his election for Honiton, and was five
times re-elected on his accepting places. In the present Parliament
he represented Tiverton. He was appointed to be one of the Lords
of the Treasury in March, 1724; a Lord of the Admiralty in May,
1728; again a Lord of the Treasury in May, 1730; Secretary at War
in May, 1735; and in May, 1746, joint Vice-Treasurer of Ireland. He
is succeeded in his estates and title of Baronet by his only son,
now Sir George Yonge, member for Honiton.--[From a printed paper of
1755, annexed as a note to MS. text by the author of the Memoirs.]
[37] He was vain, extravagant, and trifling: simple out of the
House, and too ready at assertions in it. His eloquence, which
was astonishing, was the more extraordinary, as it seemed to come
upon him by inspiration, for he could scarce talk common sense in
private on political subjects, on which in public he would be the
most animated speaker. Sir Robert Walpole has often, when he did
not care to enter early into the debate himself, given Yonge his
notes, as the latter has come late into the House, from which he
could speak admirably and fluently, though he had missed all the
preceding discussion. He had been kept down for some time by the
prevailing interest of General Churchill with Sir Robert Walpole,
on the following occasion. Yonge, in a poetic epistle (to which he
had great proneness, though scanty talents) addressed to Hedges,
who was supposed to be well with Mrs. Oldfield, said, speaking of
that actress in the character of Cleopatra,
“But thou who know’st the dead and living well.”
[The dead and living Cleopatra.]--This coming to the fair one’s
knowledge, she never ceased, till she had made such a rupture
between her fond General and Yonge, as had like to have ended in
the total ruin of the latter.