Death of John Earl Granville.--His character.--Political
persecution originating in Fox.--Want of cordiality in the
Ministerial League between him and Bute.--Attack on Patent
Places.--Lord Northington and Sir Fletcher Norton.--The Duke of
Cumberland’s remark on the harsh proceedings of Fox.--Triumph of
the Court.--Wilkes and Churchill.--Favour shown to the friends
of the Stuarts.--Observance of the Jacobite fast.--Calvert’s
extraordinary Speech.--Sir John Philipps’s Motion for the Accounts
of the Nation.--Folly of the Tories.--Committee to inspect
Madhouses.--Accounts of the Navy.--Calamities of War.--No
famous _native_ Generals except Wolfe and Lord Clive.--Charles
Townshend’s fickle Politics.--The Standing Army.
John Earl Granville, the antagonist of one Prime Minister, Prime
Minister himself, and then assistant to every succeeding Prime
Minister, died on the second day of the new year. The rhodomontade, to
which he was addicted, was set off by parts and wit, or forgiven to his
good-humour. It was very unlike the presumptuous ascendant of Pitt,
or the lofty ignorance of Lord Bute. Pitt, unsociable and muffled in
clouds, was adored from the terror imprinted by his lightnings. Bute
thought distance and obscurity sufficient characteristics of divinity;
but Granville, like Bacchus, rattled his car among men, and was but
the more admired the more he familiarized himself with mortals. He
had fallen unpitied, but unhated; and sank in rank without sinking
in esteem, his fall having lessened him less than his exaltation. He
seemed so proper for every part, that in him it did not seem mean to be
second, after commanding.[287]
The persecution, set on foot at the end of the last year, was kept up
with unrelaxed severity.[288] A place of 200_l._ a year was taken from
Mr. Legge’s nephew,[289] a boy at school: and another of the same value
from a man in Sussex, who had been rewarded with it for service done
against an inhuman set of smugglers, by the interest of the late Duke
of Grafton, whom Fox had hated. In truth, these hardships were not only
suggested by Fox, but now and then executed without the knowledge of
the Favourite, who often disclaimed[290] them, and sometimes, to load
his associate, made recompense to the parties aggrieved; for though
they became heartier friends afterwards, and though the Favourite bore
testimony, in a subsequent period, that Fox was the only man who had
not deceived him, it is pretty sure that their ministerial league was
far from cordial; not quite sure that Bute did not deceive Fox; and
certain, that the King betrayed symptoms of satisfaction on hearing
that the blame of all this violence fell on Fox.
He had meditated going still greater lengths. Lord Lincoln, whom he
particularly hated, was Auditor of the Exchequer for life, the amplest
sinecure in England, except the Archbishoprick of Canterbury. Some
other great patent-places were held by men then in Opposition. Fox
himself enjoyed a very considerable one in Ireland; yet so much did
his thirst of vengeance surmount his interest, that a question was
put to the Chancellor, whether the King could not take away patents
bestowed in former reigns, and whether the case might not be laid
before the twelve Judges. The Chancellor, who had fits of bluntness and
honesty, or prophetically affectionate to grants for life, so profusely
heaped on him afterwards, replied, “Yes, they might lay the idea
before the Judges, and then refer Magna Charta to them afterwards, to
decide on that too.” Norton, Solicitor-General, as bold and as blunt,
but never as honest as Lord Northington, being consulted to the same
point, advised to take away the places, and then see if the law would
restore them. This man now rose from obscure infamy to that infamous
fame which long will stick to him. It was known that in private causes
he took money from both parties, and availed himself against one or
other of them of the lights they had communicated to him.[291] Yet
his abilities were so good, and his knowledge so great, that no man
had more extensive practice in Westminster Hall. In Parliament he had
for some years been disregarded; but his foul tongue and causidical
boldness, his clearness in argument or facility in assertion, his
attachment to Lord Mansfield, and his total alienation from all
principle, offered him as a proper tool to a Court that was to wade
through the letter of the law to the demolition of the spirit. Yet
his authority alone could not encourage such a violation of justice
as had now been in agitation. The Favourite, too, and the Favourite’s
favourites, might think it more eligible to leave patent places
unmolested; they must have coveted them more than they could wish, to
render them precarious.
The Duke of Cumberland, on these harsh proceedings, said to Lord
Waldegrave, “Fox has deceived me grossly--not, as you think, by
giving me up; he might be as angry with me for talking to Newcastle
and Pitt--but he has deceived me, for I thought him good-natured;
but in all these transactions he has shown the bitterest revenge and
inhumanity.”
When the Houses met after Christmas, the Court was so thoroughly the
master, that scarce an attempt was made at opposition. Yet Wilkes and
Churchill wrote with as much intemperance as if the nation had been
overspread with the flame of faction. The latter now published his
“Prophecy of Famine,” one of the severest and least irregular of his
works. Their poems and libels seemed to have little effect, but the
seeds sown by them took deep root. Nor did the Court trouble itself to
deny what was charged on it. The measures of the House of Stuart were
so thoroughly copied, that even the rankest friends of that family were
adopted at St. James’s. Sir John Philipps himself was made a privy
councillor.
It happened that Lord Strange,[292] moving a common adjournment to the
following Monday, the Speaker said the House must adjourn till Tuesday,
for Monday would be the 30th of January. Lord Strange laughed at such a
Saint’s day, and divided the House, but found only thirty-six persons
of his opinion; one hundred and three were for observing the ridiculous
fast. Fox was of the majority, who, very few years before, had been
for putting an end to that Jacobite holiday--a clear indication of the
principles of the new Court. Lord Strange causing that part of the act
of Parliament, which ordains observance of the day, to be read, and
affirming that the words _Neither Parliament nor People can judge the
King_, were contrary to the constitution; Fox denied it, and maintained
that the constitution had always held that language. Rose Fuller and
Lord Strange moved another day, to abolish the observation of the
pretended martyrdom, but it was overruled by the House: however, it
produced a very bold and extraordinary speech from Calvert; he drew a
picture of a fictitious family in Surrey, whom he called _the Steadys_,
describing two old Steadys and a young one; with a very particular
account of young Steady’s mother, and of her improper intimacy
with a Scotch gardener--he hoped the true friends of young _Steady_
would advise him to recall his old friends, and turn away the Scotch
gardener. No reply was made, for none could be made, without carrying
the application too home.
Most of the other transactions of this session were as trifling, and
deserve but little notice. Sir John Philipps, to preserve a semblance
of patriotism, or instigated by Bute to intimidate Newcastle, moved for
the accounts of the nation. Fox, who did not like any clue that might
lead to the mysteries of the Pay-Office, opposed it; and Lord Granby,
though sold to the Court, warmly defended the Duke of Newcastle’s
integrity. Legge objected, too, and said he saw no end such a motion
tended to; it was like asking a country fellow the way--he always asks
you whence you came! Aislabie[293] reflected on Fox for not passing his
accounts, and the attack was received with loud marks of approbation;
but when neither the late nor actual ministers encouraged the inquiry,
it was not likely to be very successful. Sir John Philipps accordingly
desisted, and Sir Francis Dashwood proposed to name a select committee
to examine any accounts that had been brought in, which was agreed to;
and lists were given out, from whence an equal number being chosen of
the Court’s and of Newcastle’s friends, no more came of this, than
of twenty such intended inquiries. Nor was anything memorable in
the outset, but that the Tories, meeting in a body to consider the
proposed lists, erased the names of Fox’s four chief friends; still,
so blind were those dull men to their real interest, and still so much
addicted to be led by mere names, they even objected to the large
army proposed to be maintained; proof that they had not one sensible
man of their body. What should a large army achieve but the work of
monarchy? Or say the Tories were honest men and lovers of liberty?
Could they love liberty and slavery both? or did they call themselves
by a disgraceful name when they deserved to wear an honourable one? In
truth, all the sensible Tories I ever knew were either Jacobites or
became Whigs; those that remained Tories remained fools.
A scheme more laudable, more necessary, and founded on a crying evil,
met with no fairer success than the committee of accounts. I mean the
committee to inspect and redress the grievous abuses of madhouses.[294]
Charles Townshend took great pains in that business, distinguished
himself, was content and dropped it. The lawyers raised many
objections, and removed none. Poor humanity! how ill art thou treated
by the human race! We fire at the relation of calamities, denounce
vengeance on the perpetrators, cry out for, set about, reformation,
and in England, give us our due, lavish our money towards it; then
grow cool, and never think of the woe afterwards. Lawyers never suffer
correction of abuses; they defend them even where they do not commit
them.
When the accounts of the navy were brought into the House, it appeared
that one hundred and eighty-four thousand seamen had been raised during
the war. Of these, one hundred and thirty thousand had been lost to
the nation; and yet, scarce will it be believed, sixteen hundred only
had been killed![295] Many had deserted, and had enlisted again;
others went into other services. Most of the rest died of distempers,
climates, hardships, &c. But with the loss of sixteen hundred men, we
had destroyed the navies of France and Spain. Glorious consideration!
could it be unmixed with the remembrance of the other hundred and
twenty-eight thousand! But Glory must shed more tears of anguish than
of joy, whenever she turns accomptant. What if returns were made of all
the other lives lost in that war all over the face of the globe! What
did the peasants in Germany suffer? even heroism had its pangs. Did not
the King of Prussia see every general with whom he commenced that short
war perish before his eyes? I said he felt a pang--I hope he did. It
is an observation a little foreign to the reflection with which I set
out, but extensively victorious as that war was to Britain, she did not
see one famous _native_ general arise out of that war, except Wolfe,
who died in the cradle of his celebrity; and unless we name Lord Clive,
who was more a statesman than general, and in both respects not matched
against equal rivals. I do not mean to detract from his merits; he was
born to shine in the Indies: at home he never stepped beyond the common
of mankind.
Charles Townshend, who had but just resigned, and who had no sooner
resigned than he opposed the opposition, perceiving the weakness of
that opposition, that Pitt would not lead it, and afraid to lead it
himself, struck in again with the tide, and at the end of February
kissed hands for first Lord of Trade, with a nominal rank of Cabinet
Councillor, but without being permitted to go in to the King with
state papers, except with those relating to the Board of Trade. He had
boasted of far greater offers. Lord Sandys was removed to make room for
him. A promiscuous meeting being held at Sir Francis Dashwood’s, to
consider what proportion of army should be kept up, Ellis, Secretary
at War, proposed eighteen thousand men for England, ten for America,
and the usual twelve thousand for Ireland; but hinted at raising six
thousand more for the latter kingdom; which Fox said the King desired.
Sir Charles Mordaunt, a chief Tory, said he had great duty for the
King, but could not consent to that augmentation. Charles Townshend
seconded his refusal, and it was given up.
Lord Strange said the King must know what force was wanting, and if
necessary it must be granted; but if the King would give it up, it
showed it was not necessary; and therefore himself should be for the
lesser number. Sir John Philipps, Lord George Sackville, and Rigby
tried in Parliament to obtain the additional six thousand, but could
not carry the point, though they endeavoured to prove that the King was
not limited by the act of King William to but twelve thousand men in
Ireland.