Debates on the Treaties in the House of Lords, and in the
Commons--Affair of Hume Campbell and Pitt--Hanover and our
Foreign Relations--Speech of Charles Townshend--Foreign Powers
subsidized by England--Changes in the Administration--Lord
Ligonier and the Duke of Marlborough--Pensions granted
to facilitate Ministerial Changes--Parliamentary
Eloquence--Comparison of celebrated Orators--Charles Townshend,
Lord George Sackville, Henry Conway, and Mr. Pitt.
December 10th.--The treaties were considered in both Houses.
In the Lords, Earl Temple, in a very long and very indifferent
speech, in which there was nothing remarkable but his saying,
_that we were become an insurance-office to Hanover_, moved for
a censure on the treaties. Lord Chesterfield defended them with
great applause. The turn of his speech was to ascribe the clamour
against Hanover to the Jacobites, and to ridicule them. He talked
much on the Rebellion, on the intended insurrection, for which
Sir John Cotton’s resigning his employment was to have been the
signal, and of Marshal Saxe’s projected invasion, or _chimère_,
in 1744. He was to have brought 12,000 saddles, his Lordship
supposed, for disaffected horses. A Jacobite might think he could
answer for horses; he does think he can answer for what is as
little governable. He went through a deduction of the history of
England since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, with regard to the
continent--of James the First, he said, he had other things to
think of--he was writing against witches and tobacco.
Lord Marchmont was more severe on Lord Temple, and said, he could
not pretend to keep steady those cock-boats of eloquence. He
believed their intentions right, but they might do much mischief by
raising such animosities. If a man kills one, what satisfaction to
be told, that he only intended to maim? If that House was burned
down, what indemnification would it be, that they meaned only to
set fire to these treaties with a farthing candle? He concluded
with saying, that he had heard this measure compared to the Trojan
horse, filled with armed men--but that was not the cause of
complaint--the persons in Opposition were angry that they were not
to bridle and saddle it.
The Duke of Bedford spoke _for_ the treaties; Lord Ravensworth
against them, and against the censure of them too. The Chancellor
spoke severely against Lord Temple, and fulsomely and indecently;
seeing the Prince of Wales there taking notes, he said, he now
began to have hopes of him; hoped he would be the father of all
his subjects; flattered the Duke; and said of the Ministers,
they were sometimes painted like angels, sometimes like monsters.
Lord Temple repaid the invective. He did not know, he said, whom
he had painted as angels; he had some time ago heard one man[31]
painted as a monster--he did not know how he would be represented
now. Remembered how he had formerly been drawn into a measure[32]
himself, for tearing away a favourite servant from the King, by
those who had since adopted that Minister’s measures. He wished
that Minister had remained; his measure would not be mangled now
by blundering cobblers. Lord Halifax spoke warmly against German
measures; and called the present the most expensive funeral of our
expiring country that ever was furnished by a rash undertaker. Lord
Pomfret, as earnest, called on the Bishops to prevent the effusion
of Christian blood. The Duke of Newcastle, Lord Holderness,
Lord Morton, and Lord Raymond, spoke for the treaties; and Lord
Cathcart, in vindication of the behaviour of the Hessians in the
last war; and then the censure being rejected by 85 to 12, Lord
Egremont and Lord Ilchester moved for approbation of the treaties;
and the House broke up at ten at night.
The Commons sat to the same hour. Lord Barrington moving to refer
the treaties to the Committee; Potter opposed it, affirming that
the treaties were unconstitutional acts, and express violations of
the Act of Settlement, for which reason he would not enter into
the merits; any treaty for Hanover, whether subsidiary or not,
made without consent of Parliament, being such an infringement.
He only observed that the stipulations with Hesse were so loose,
that for 8000 men, we might be engaged in a war of twenty years
for the Landgrave, if attacked by whomsoever. That these questions
might involve us in a war for Hanover--ergo, were a violation of
the Settlement. The appropriation of the late Vote of Credit to
these subsidies was a violation too of that. He was running into
strong censure, but checked himself, saying, he could not call
it a profligate age, when such men had fallen victims to their
integrity! Potter’s manner was at once important and languid, and
consequently effaced impressions as fast as he made them. Sir
George Lyttelton insisted that the express defence of England
and her Allies was provided for by the Hessian treaty. And Lord
Duplin excused the application of the Vote of Credit, as intended
to enable us to furnish our contingents. Fox told Potter that his
accusation was too weighty for his conclusion; was he content,
after charging such crimes, with preventing the treaties from being
referred to the Committee? Martin replied, that, considering what
name was involved in these negotiations, a rejection was thought
more decent than a censure.
The Duke of Newcastle, apprehending that Murray might skirmish too
cautiously with Pitt, and that Fox, though he might combat him,
might not much defend his Grace, had selected another champion,
who was equal to any Philippic, and whom he would for that purpose
have made Paymaster, if Fox had not withstood it. This was Hume
Campbell, who for some time had deserted Opposition, and almost
Parliament, and had applied himself entirely to his profession of
the Law, which he was at once formed to adorn and to suit, for he
was eloquent, acute, abusive, corrupt, and insatiable. He began
with professing his reverence for the Act of Settlement, as the act
of King William, to whom we owed our existence as a Parliament:
yet, said he, “the sense of the House should be taken in form on
the legality or illegality of the measure: the charge ought to be
well made out: if not illegal, _let the House punish the eternal
invectives_.” Pitt called him to order, and told him, he thought he
was too good a member of Parliament, to describe Debates in that
manner. Old Horace Walpole answered, that Pitt ought to be the
last man in the House to complain of irregularity. This occasioned
much disorder. Pitt said, he had risen to put Hume Campbell in
mind of words that struck directly at the liberty of Debate: that
he had him in his power if he insisted on taking down the words,
but would decline, till he had explained himself. Hume Campbell
then continued, in a masterly speech, to censure the unlimited
reflections that were daily thrown on the Ministers; adding, that
when people made charges on acts of State, they ought to be obliged
to make them out. He mentioned Sir William Thompson’s accusation
of Lord Lechmere, and other cases, which had been voted scandalous
and malicious. Hard would it be, if that House might not resent
unjust accusations of our _superiors_. When they happen in crowded
houses,[33] strangers take notes, and the abuse is dispersed to the
most mischievous purposes. In 1745, invectives scattered there,
were transplanted into the Pretender’s manifestos. He lamented
their misleading his unhappy countrymen;[34] and owned that he was
but too apt to be warm himself.
Then passing to the objections raised from the Act of Settlement,
he said, he should pay no compliment to it; it had been intended a
censure on King William: the clause specified was only declaratory,
and did not take away from the Crown the power of making treaties.
In 1727, a treaty of mutual guarantee was made with the Court of
Wolfenbuttle, and was signed by great men and Whigs, by the Duke
of Devonshire, Lord Trevor, Lord Townshend, and by the greatest of
all, Sir Robert Walpole: it was debated, written against, yet was
never once thought a violation of the Settlement. Afterwards, when
a Motion was made for removing Sir Robert Walpole, there wanted no
abilities to charge him; there was only wanting fact and evidence;
but the House called for facts, not speeches; for evidence, not
assertions. No man dreamed of such a breach of the constitution;
yet had it been so, the treaty was a fact, and Sir Robert’s name
to it was evidence. The present treaties were a great system of
preventive measures:--what was the most hostile part of them? that
levelled against Prussia--yet that Prince could not be sorry that
we should have future greatness: his maxim was, that no Ally can be
well worth keeping, unless they can do without you. In the present
case, that King may be glad to plead his fear of the Russians,
against admitting the French into Germany. For his own part, he
would rather censure the negotiators than the treaties themselves,
which were calculated for the interests, and Navy, and commerce
of Britain. But if the Ministers were so guilty as was pretended,
the times were too dangerous not to remove them. He concluded
with a short defence of himself, denied being in the power of any
individual, and said he must plead as an excuse of his egotism that
rule of Plutarch, never to say anything in defence of yourself, but
when mankind could not possibly know it without; let his warmth be
taken as a proof of his honesty.
Vyner remarked, that Lord Chancellor King had long refused to
enrol the treaty of Wolfenbuttle. George Granville pointed out the
impropriety of referring illegal papers, to see if the Committee
would grant money on them; and the impossibility of forming a
charge in the Committee, instead of giving money: or the absurdity
of giving money, and then considering whether it was legal or
not. He taxed it with being unparliamentary language to say that
the Act of Settlement was formed by the enemies of the House of
Hanover; were Lord Wharton, Lord Somers, enemies? If that doctrine
should prevail, the same might be said of the Bill of Rights: all
our Statute Books might be erased, might be called founded on
disrespect. This indeed would be a way of restraining Debates, to
call them acts of hostility. Why the treaty of Wolfenbuttle avoided
censure was, the King’s having been empowered the year before to
contract alliances for defence of Hanover. Would anybody agree to
refer the treaty in question to the Committee, because they did not
believe it would engage us in a war for Hanover? What had proved
to be the intent of the former treaty with Russia? When England
was attacked in 1745, and we did not reclaim our money from Russia
(about 400,000_l._), it marked that treaty to have related only
to Hanover. But we made treaties when we ought to deliberate, and
deliberated when we ought to act. If the Hessians were retained
in June for fear of an invasion, were they ready now in December?
could they be ready under three months? and wherefore had we taken
no other precautions? Were these Hessians all-sufficient? He wished
our situation were such, that the authors of this measure were to
be envied! If their negotiations were approved by the Committee,
could they afterwards be impeached? He did not wonder, therefore,
that they pushed on this method.
Murray answered, that the sense of the House on the legality might
be taken collaterally in the Committee--but were we engaged, or
to be engaged, in a war for Hanover? The first Act of Settlement,
which obliged Privy Councillors to sign their opinions, had been
repealed by Lord Somers himself. That, allowing the present charge,
the Act would not be infringed till the troops were reclaimed. But
these arguments would disable the King from leaving a single clause
in a treaty for his Electoral defence. If this treaty violated the
Act of Settlement, it had been broken by all defensive treaties;
had been broken by the Quadruple Alliance. That treaty engaged the
contracting Powers mutually to defend _all_ the dominions of each
other; and if the stipulated succours proved insufficient, they
were to engage in a war. It was the same in the treaty of Hanover.
But the bare conclusion of the treaty was never charged. In the
year 1739 we contracted for Hessians and Danes; it was thought
prudent to secure them, though we were then involved only in a war
with Spain: no previous application had been made to Parliament.
All subsequent subsidiary treaties had been concluded in the same
way. We could not enjoy the blessing of the present Royal Family
without the inconveniences. In the year 1740 a Vote of Credit had
been applied in the same manner. But granting it perverted, would
the misapplication spoil the treaty?
Pitt, after Hume Campbell’s attack, had let these discussions
intervene, as if taking time to collect his anger. He rose at
last, aggravating by the most contemptuous looks, and action, and
accents, the bitterest and most insulting of all speeches. Such
little matter, he said, had been offered on the defensive side,
that he did not know where to go. Had Hume Campbell had anything
else to say, he would not have dwelt for half an hour on the treaty
of Wolfenbuttle--and what had he produced? a list of Lords who
signed it! How were their names to induce the House to refer these
treaties to a Committee? such poor little shifts and evasions might
do in a pie-poudre-court;[35] they were unworthy a great House of
Parliament. Once Hume Campbell had been his great friend, and they
had trod the same paths of invectives[36] together, which now the
other wanted to have punished, so ready was he, by a side-wind,
to level the laws, and so fond of _superiors_! Nay, he had urged
that the Act of Settlement was not obligatory till the treaties
were ratified! he prayed to Heaven, that doctrines, dangerous as
_manifestos_, might not prevail there! The gentleman had dared to
avow such doctrine--but a Court could never want one servile lawyer
for any purpose. In the profligate, prerogative reign of James
the First, when a _great Duke_[37] was at the head of power, even
that House of Commons possessed a member who dared to call him
_Stellionatus_.[38] And there did not want a _servile lawyer_ to
call for punishment on the honest burgess.
“We have a King who disdains to keep pace with such a _servile
lawyer_--but,” said he, (turning, and directly nodding at Hume
Campbell, who sat three benches above him,) “I will not dress up
this image under a third person; I apply it to him; his is the
slavish doctrine, he is the slave; and the shame of this doctrine
will stick to him as long as his gown sticks to his back--but his
trade is words; they were not provoked by me--but they are not
objects of terror, but of my contempt and ridicule. Then,” said
he, turning to Murray, “I would come to another learned gentleman,
but it is difficult to know where to pull the first thread from a
piece so finely spun. Constructions ought never to condemn a great
Minister, but I think this crime of violating the Act of Settlement
is within the letter. If the dangerous illegality of it is to be
inquired into, it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole
House, not to a Committee of Supply. Inquired into it must be: will
I suffer an audacious Minister to run before Parliament? I do not
say _superiors_, I hate that miserable poor word; but if a Cabinet
have taken on them to conclude subsidiary treaties without consent
of Parliament, shall they not answer it?” He affirmed that there
was not the smallest similarity between these and the treaties
quoted. In 1717 and 1718 the Ministers stated dangers from Sweden,
and then asked for money. The treaty of Hanover was grounded on
the Ostend Company, and on the negotiations about Gibraltar, &c.
Time, the great discoverer of truth, had not yet discovered whether
there was any truth in the assertion of the Emperor and Spain
designing to set the Pretender on the Throne. Would any lawyer
plead, when his Majesty speaks in a treaty and says _dominions_,
that he can mean anything but his British dominions? we were not
to be explained out of our liberties, nor by being taught to
subtilize, to lose respect for the essential.
In the last war the Hessians did once go into _aliena castra_, and
except at that time when they were forced at Munich, never behaved
well. He thought there was an equal violation by both treaties, but
the Russian most dangerous: yet he would not avow that we were so
exhausted as to declare we could not assist Holland. Because this
treaty stipulated succours for England and Holland and Hanover,
did the legality for the two first prove the third stipulation
not illegal? But even the protection of Holland was not mentioned
in the Address of last year. “Where,” said Murray, “is the harm
of holding my troops ready? the Crown reserves it as an operative
act.” But that was precision at which we could not arrive! was all
an unmeaning verbiage! You had not the troops, therefore it was no
war! but there was levy money: and raising men, without firing a
gun, was constructive treason. He wished he could hear any more of
the shining lights of Westminster!--the long robe was made use of
in all arbitrary times. How often had they attacked Magna Charta
with explanations of _nisi per mandatum Domini Regis_! Where, might
it have been said in the late Rebellion, was the harm of a few men
_ready_ to rebel? Dr. Foigard says, “Where is the harm of being in
a closet?” These _vigorous_ measures would pull a war out of the
closet. He denied that the Crown had a power of making subsidiary
treaties that lead to war. That Hanover was concerned in all these
treaties quoted, he was sorry to hear--then surely it was time to
stop it, since we improve so much in adulation, as to be arrived at
the age of speaking out and avowing Hanover in all. He wished the
circumstances of this country could permit us to extend such care
to Hanover; but he would not for any consideration have set his
hand to these treaties.
Fox with great spirit took up the defence of Hume Campbell, who
willingly abandoned it to him. “The honourable gentleman,” said
he, “has nothing to answer to two such speeches but to say that
he is astonished. What! nothing to so long a series of treaties
as had been quoted! was it no argument that those treaties had
been so debated, and had been signed by men of the greatest
and most unblemished characters? Mr. Pitt’s, indeed, had been
guarded, but they had been most personal invectives. Yet he
would not, said he, have uttered them, unless personally called
on--how was he personally called on? _Eternal invectives_ were
the words--he is a great master of invective, but is he the sole
person who wages it? Hume Campbell had spoken of his _superiors_
as an individual. Who has no _superiors_? Though _distinctions_
were now so condemned, he could remember endeavours to create
_distinctions_ between Hanoverians and Englishmen, on our taking
those troops into our pay: they were accursed distinctions; and
the weakest conceivable, if attempted by persons who wished well
to the present establishment. However we were improved, we did not
improve in invectives. He hoped Ministers would never say they
should be punished: let the gentlemen amuse themselves with them!
they had lost their force; the people know to what they tend, by
discoveries made and repeated within these fifteen years: they had
been tried ineffectually on this occasion. In 1726, if Hanover was
not comprehended in the word _States_, it was not included at all:
the _distinction_ was Pitt’s. Germans and Russians must by _States_
understand Hanover. Would not Murray have been to blame, if he had
not spoken with precision on treaties? Lord Ducie retained 200
men in arms during the late Rebellion; did he levy war? He hoped
the Ministers would be disculpated from the accusation of levying
war on Prussia, by hindering him from levying war! How were the
Bavarian and Saxon treaties applauded, though concluded during the
recess and without consent of Parliament, and the money advanced!
He would do nothing to prevent invectives being used; and he hoped
the King’s Ministers had _virtue and understanding_ enough not to
mind them!”
Sir George Lee and Legge spoke against the treaties: the latter
said, He hoped the clause in the Act of Settlement would never be
declared not prohibitory; how was that clause to be preserved,
unless all steps leading to a war were laid before us? is engaging
in war to be confined to mere abstinence of declaring war? If
Russia is attacked, and our ships sail to the Baltic, is it not
war? and whose war? of the Act of Settlement? or of prerogative
and Ministers, against the Act of Settlement? He would not give
so much countenance to these treaties, as to refer them to a
Committee.--Several others spoke on each side; and Beckford
finished the Debate with reflections on the notorious ductility of
prerogative lawyers, alluding to Hume Campbell, who did not want
another blow to stun him. The Court prevailed by 318 to 126.
Dec. 12th.--Lord Barrington opened the treaties in the Committee,
and urged that that with Hesse was cheaper than the one in 1740;
and that the chief object of them was to enable us to furnish our
quotas to the Low Countries and to the Austrians. That he wished
to see Foreign Troops here from our Allies rather than from our
enemies. That the Russian General, though his own country should be
attacked, was to obey our requisition without waiting for orders
from his Court. That it was evident the Russian Empress was our
Ally, not our mercenary, or she would have insisted on some such
terms as the Germans; but she only wanted to be enabled to assist
us. That Sweden had a well-manned fleet, Russia had not. That there
were no thoughts of a continent war--and yet he owned he wished
the Royal Family had been a younger branch, and that our Foreign
Dominions do take off from[39] our insularity--on the other hand,
their connexion with us takes away the insularity of Hanover. He
drew no unflattering opposition between the advantages we derive
from Hanover in the acquisition of so good a King and so great a
General, and the loss to that people of such a Sovereign!
Lord Pulteney said with spirit, that he was shocked on entering
life to find everything valuable, as the Act of Settlement,
treated with ridicule or indifference; and he lashed the known
perfidy of the Landgrave of Hesse, who had so hampered us in this
treaty, that he seemed to mean only to get a sinecure or pension.
The fluctuating state of Russia, and the dropsical condition of
the Empress, rendered their assistance precarious: if we should
obtain it, we had marked out the King of Prussia’s dominions for
their quarters. He touched pretty plainly on the wealth of Hanover;
said, there were two millions of _Hanoverian_ money in the Saxon
Funds--why was none of it drawn out on this occasion? why would
they not exert a little love of their country?
He was answered by Edward Finch, a Groom of the Bedchamber, who
gave as satisfactory and circumstantial an account of the Czarina’s
health and kindred, and of his own hopes and joys on those topics,
as if he dreaded the _knout_ for want of loyalty or exactness.
He had formerly been Ambassador at that Court, and united the
unpolished sycophancy of it to the person and formality of a
Spaniard. One may judge of his talent for negotiations, when he
defended them with genealogies! The absurdity of Finch struck fire
from Delaval, who never had another moment of parts. The former
had sneered at Lord Pulteney’s premeditated speech; Delaval begged
that another time Finch would premeditate too. For invectives,
he said he would no more believe such political augury, than the
Life-Guardsman who foretold the earthquake; and he did not doubt
but the King might sleep in St. James’s till he should be awakened
by the shouts of a grateful people. Were these Foreign Troops such
a grievance? Edward III., Queen Elizabeth, had entertained German
troops--were they for defence of Hanover? King William had them
too, and Queen Anne--were they all influenced by a partial regard
to Hanover?
Charles Townshend spoke for three quarters of an hour against
the treaties with infinite rapidity, vehemence, and parts. He
began with an attack on Hume Campbell, saying that he might
offend his _superiors_, and might be misrepresented by some new
convert, intemperate in his zeal, and plunging from rank abuse to
adulation--yet he would not hesitate; everything dear depended
on the event of that day. He touched on the misapplication of
the vote of credit, and enlarged on our situation, finding us,
notwithstanding our stoic patience, forced into a war, which,
though mismanaged, had hitherto been successful: yet we seemed to
intend to be no longer superior at sea. What was the situation
of Europe? It was necessary for France to make a diversion by
the means of Prussia, alienated from the King, and jealous both
of Russia and France, and angry with Austria. This made him the
arbiter of peace and war: his capacity made him so too; he was
the most able crowned head in Europe. Spain was now governed with
Spanish councils; to those we owed her neutrality. The Court of
Vienna was disinclined to war: the States so sunk, they could not
be the better or the worse for us. How politic had been our conduct
with all! Vienna and Holland disliked a war; Spain declined it,
and Prussia; France was averse to it only from the backwardness of
Prussia--yet him you had provoked! how culpable were the Ministers,
who, to flatter the ill disposition that they found in the Cabinet,
had kept that Prince at a distance: he had begged you would not
hinder him from being your Ally; he formerly offered his friendship
in exchange for two Duchies: Austria refused them: that refusal
had been admired by my Lord Granville, who grounded on it, and
enraged him by, a partition of his dominions. What pains had been
taken since to reconcile him: personal favour had been courted by
encouraging prejudices against him: yet his wisdom had counteracted
our folly. He determined to preserve the peace of Europe, and
declined the offers of France.
Why did the Ministry add the threats of England to the
disobligations of France and its temptations? why acquiesced not
to the wise foot on which that King had put things? instead of
that came the little petulant mechanic activity sometimes seen
in the persons of some[40] Ministers. What would have prevented
a war? acting with Prussia. What would make it? bullying him.
He then objected to the Hessian treaty, as impracticable; for
contingents, as useless; to the money having been appropriated,
as unparliamentary. When the Opposition, he said, offered to the
Ministers to increase the Army, they answered, it was large enough;
when to increase the Fleet, it would be too much--and then, neither
Army nor Fleet were sufficient, and we must have Hessians. They
had evidently contracted both services to make room for Foreign
Auxiliaries. He wished the Administration was in such hands as
those which signed the treaty of Wolfenbuttle! He thought[41]
somebody besides his ancestor presided in the Councils of those
days, and foisted in that spirit which now breathed in all our
Councils.
Then, reverting to Russia; Russia, he said, like a quarter-master,
would make an assignation with France to come to a place called
Hanover; they would say, “Prussia is in our way; we will remove
him--but he is in good humour; we will provoke him.” He spoke, he
said, with little premeditation; he was encouraged by the success
his friend Finch had had in that manner. Our wise, economic
Ministry foresaw a war, but brought it on sooner than anybody else
could. The Address of last year had mentioned only America and
these Kingdoms: what had been stated to the House but the clamour
on the encroachments of the French? and if that should bring the
war hither, we had resolved to defend the King. These had been
the only motives[42] of Lord Granby and of his brother, whom he
praised: he asked that Lord if he was not right; his Lordship’s
assent would be a full answer to the boldness or preciseness of
any Minister. Vyner had asked last year if that money was really
to be applied as voted: the question was received with surprise,
because nobody thought it could be misapplied. Then the King went
abroad with only an unthinking and unparliamentary Minister[43]
at his ear--they made the treaty. Ministers here did not dare to
refuse what they would not have done. Then some servile lawyer was
to be found to defend it. The Act of Settlement and everything
sacred was to be infringed while the whole Cabinet was struggling
for power. Report said everywhere, said abroad, that nothing but
corruption prevailed in the House of Commons.[44] Instances had
been brought to our Courts of Judicature how much it prevailed in
our elections. But now, added he, show that you are not under any
one man; show you are not part of his retinue; that you are without
_superiors_. Imitate great examples; see the virtue and integrity
of those who have refused all things inconsistent with their
honour--though I have heard that their eloquence is amusement, and
that it is our fault if we follow it.
Hume Campbell at last broke silence, but, though he pressed some
firmness into his words, the manner, and much of the matter, was
flat and mean. He complimented Charles Townshend with a mixture
of irony, telling him that in some points he had no _superior_;
in some, no equal. He should have answered Mr. Pitt in the former
Debate, but he had inquired, and found it was contrary to the
orders of the House. He denied having spoken on any treaties but
on that of Worms; since that he had been following a profession to
avoid _servility_. Now he returned to the service of the House,
he found that Debates were cramped by expressions unbecoming men;
yet no epithets should make him cease to speak his mind with
resolution. He was taxed with adulation; he found that the former
adulation of others was turned _to run the race of invective_;
sudden conversion was more applicable to others than to him. He had
not expected such support as Mr. Fox’s; he would study to deserve
it, _dum spiritus hos regit artus_--but he would not take up the
time of the House in fabricating words and coining _verbiage_: this
was the last time personality should call him up. He had been told
that morning by the Speaker, that everything might be said there
with impunity. He had scarce ever felt what ambition was, though
he knew he had been accused of it. No political variation had ever
made him break a friendship: the flame of invective he had caught
from his _superiors_. _Nemo sine vitiis nascitur; optimus ille qui
minimis urgetur._ He had quitted the former Opposition, when he saw
they aimed at men, not measures, and when he saw all confidence
broken amongst them: that, and the Rebellion, had opened his eyes.
He owned he had formerly thought it wrong to take Hanoverians
into our pay, as it would increase the disgusts against the Royal
Family. Pitt did not deign a reply.[45]
Sir George Lyttelton said he did not mean to restrain invectives;
desired no man’s mouth should be free from them but his own; urged
that the treaty specified, if we were attacked ourselves, that
we should not be obliged to furnish twelve ships to Muscovy.
That if either treaty tended to war, or to provoke Prussia, they
would deserve censure; but they were merely defensive; the troops
even not to move unless we required it. Defence is not injury;
provision is not provocation. The King of Prussia would have a
higher esteem for our Government; he knows that whoever desires
peace, must prepare for war. Despair is the worst and weakest of
councils. Fortitude and wisdom will find resources, as the Queen
of Hungary did, in 1741: we [were] not in so bad a situation by a
thousand degrees. Had we then retained the Russians, that war had
been prevented. Here were no plans of partition. Unallied, we could
make no diversion to France. France unassisted would not dare to
disturb the peace of the Empire. Would you have trusted to France
for not violating the Law of Nations? _Cæsar ashamed! has he not
seen Pharsalia?_ Our trade could not be preserved if the balance
of Europe overturned, nor that balance overturned, without some
assistance from hence. Subsidiary treaties must be struck at lucky
moments, when the occasion offers itself.
Legge, in reply, asked if, because it was possible that France
might draw us upon the continent, we ought to mark out the way for
her?--but the Ministers, indeed, by way of defence, had endeavoured
to reduce the treaties to no meaning. All they pretended was to
make magazines of 140,000 men _standing at livery_, to supply our
contingents; though all our Allies told us they were at peace.
For Hesse-Cassel, one would think we were as ignorant of the
topography of it as if it belonged to ourselves. In five weeks the
Hessians might be ready to be prevented by the wind from coming
to our assistance! That little country, since 1726, had received
two millions of our money! When in danger, we wanted them--but
they were in other pay, and did not behave quite so ill as when
in ours. At Bergopzoom they behaved shamefully! We lost a good
officer there--while he was endeavouring to persuade them but to
look over the parapet. There was no end of objections to them! They
occasioned the loss of the battle of Laffelt. In Scotland they
would not fight because no cartel was settled with Rebels. The
present Landgrave was old; the next would be a papist: subjects of
a papist, would we wish them here to fight against the French?
Colonel Haldane bore testimony to the Hessians behaving well at
Roucoux,--not so well at Laffelt, yet not very infamously: the
Prince of Hesse, with tears, tried to rally them. Colonel Griffin
deposed that he did see them rally there.
Nugent argued on the necessity of diverting the men and money
of France by a grand alliance, in case they should obtain the
superiority; and on the difficulty of our collecting any Army but
of Russians. This, said he, is my way of thinking, and agreeable
to one who is reckoned in the system of that rash and frantic
Minister[46] who saved Europe.
George Grenville observed, how extraordinary it was in this
treaty to call the King of Prussia _the common enemy_; but it was
evident the whole was intended against him. He did not hear that
our civility had engaged that Prince to pay the Silesian Loan. In
four years we were to pay 340,000_l._ to Hesse-Cassel; besides
which, they were to be indemnified: cheap bargain! If they were
employed, the whole expense of Foot and Cavalry would amount to
1,180,000_l._ The Russians were to receive 500,000_l._ a-year, from
the time they were required to act. Together, the expense would
rise to the sum of 3,180,000_l._! This was the first treaty that
promised indemnification. Was our debt reduced only to furnish new
subsidies? Why had a mere naval war never been tried? The moment
the former treaties had been obtained, the election of a King of
the Romans was laid aside. Edward the Third, who experienced the
inutility and inconveniences of German auxiliaries, ordered a
record to be entered that _subsidia Germanorum in pace onerosa, in
bello inutilia_. The treaty with Russia had been commenced in 1747,
but had been kept secret during the life of Mr. Pelham.
Beckford, with his wild sense, ran through some general heads;
said, no affront had been intended to the Law, but to its rotten,
servile limbs, such as explained away an Act of Settlement, and
assisted state alchymists to render an Act of Parliament a _caput
mortuum_. Yet there was this difference between the professors;
the metallurgic artist loses gold; the State artist gets it. That
it was an indignity for great nations to become tributary to
little ones. That we have no barrier, but what by defending we
shall enrich ourselves. _That our Kings, though they have less
prerogative than their predecessors, are richer, and consequently
more powerful._ In the late war, the Queen of Hungary’s affairs
went well, till we engaged as principals, and then she left the
burthen upon us. Before the present war, we had twenty men in
America to one Frenchman.
Lord George Sackville, with as much spirit, and with sense as
compact as the other’s was incoherent, replied, that if the
question was agitating whether we should desert the war in America,
and stick to the continent, nobody would dare to support such
an argument. In the year 1725, the Court of Vienna leagued with
Russia; we with Sweden and Denmark, and Wolfenbuttle, and Hesse.
The greatest loss we had experienced was of Prussia;--but should we
bear it patiently or counteract him by Russia? It might be right
to trust to his inactivity, if, in 1744, after you had given him
Silesia, he had not marched into Bohemia. If the Russians had then
been on his back, would he have dared to go to Prague? When driven
from thence by Prince Charles, he lost 30,000 men by desertion. He
will always seize opportunities where he can strike with security.
If all allow that Hanover is to be protected, and Hanover says,
“This is the easiest way,” shall we not take it? He would not have
our Allies think that we were so taken up with America, as not to
be able to attend to them. He concluded handsomely with saying,
“They who on this occasion have declined employments, have acted
honourably; they who have gone into an unenvied Ministry, to
support it, deserve not reproach: they will deserve support, if
their conduct continues upright.”
George Townshend, with much warmth and threats, expressed his
resentment on being drawn to make the Motion last year for a
perverted Vote of Credit. Lord Granby, with great decency, said,
that if anything had been done contrary to that Address, the House
must judge of it: yet he was not such an enemy to Hanover, as to
let the French satiate their rage on Hanoverian subjects, because
their Elector had acted the part of a British King.
Old Horace Walpole, now near fourscore, had yet busy spirits
enough, very late at night, to pay part of the purchase of his
future title, by a speech in defence of the treaties; to which
Pitt replied in a very long harangue, but was not well, and spoke
with little fire. He told Fox, that it should not be his method to
vilify the laws, and yet pretend to love the lawyers; that he did
not pretend to eloquence, but owed all his credit to the indulgence
of the House: looked with respect on the King’s prejudices, with
contempt on those who encouraged them. Was everything to be styled
_invective_, that had not the smoothness of a Court compliment?
Must it be called so, unless a charge was brought judicially
on paper? He complimented Charles Townshend, who, he said, had
displayed such abilities as had not appeared since that House was a
House. He talked much on the situation of the King of Prussia, who
if well disposed, this measure was not necessary; if ill disposed,
it was a war--but he would not enter into all the ambages of the
_Corps Diplomatique_, and of the gentleman[47] wrapped up in a
political cloak. He and others had said, “Talk against Hanover! oh!
you will raise a Rebellion!”--it was language for a boarding-school
girl! Lord Townshend and Sir Robert Walpole had withstood Hanover:
the latter, said he, thought well of me, died in peace with me.
He was a truly English Minister, and kept a strict hand on the
closet--as soon as removed, the door was flung open. His friends
and followers transferred themselves to the Minister,[48] who
transplanted that English Minister--and even his reverend brother,
who still adorns this House, is gone over to the Hanoverian party!
Fox said little on the treaties; his point was to keep Pitt at bay.
He again retorted on the latter, the treasonable pamphlets and
songs of the former Opposition--all, to be sure, for the good of
this country! But he never would forgive any man who had a heart
to conceive, a head to contrive, and a hand to execute, so much
mischief. That mischief was only cured by what might[49] have been
worse! In his station he envied Charles Townshend nothing more than
his knowledge of the Councils of the King of Prussia. His Majesty,
he said, had communicated these treaties to the Prussian Minister
here, with assurances of our desire of peace. That gentleman, said
he of Pitt, professes being proud of acting with some here; I am
proud of acting with so many. But is it the part of a wise man,
because he wishes Hanover separated from England, to act as if it
was separate already?
The House sat till three in the morning, when the Committee agreed
to both treaties, by a majority of 289 to 121.
December 15th.--The agreement of the Committee to the treaties
was reported to the House. Some of the Tories, and Elliot and
Dr. Hay, with spirit opposed concurring with the Committee. Lord
Egmont made a long, injudicious, and weak speech, in behalf of the
treaties, all his arguments tending to a grand alliance, and war
on the continent, and coupled with pedantic quotations from Greek
and Roman story. Murray, though subtilizing too much, spoke with
great art. Among other pleas, he asked, if the treaties should
be rejected, how we were engaged in a war? Could the King make
it alone? How did the House even know that the money had been
advanced? It was usual to advance money out of services voted,
which was replaced afterwards, when the new occasions were allowed:
but this was always done at the risk of the Ministers: in the
present case the Lords Justices were responsible. That it was not
preventing a war to abandon the continent; it was only giving it up
to France. On the growing power of Russia, he quoted an expression
of Sir Joseph Jekyll, who said, he thought he saw a northern star
arising, which, if properly managed, might preserve the liberties
of Europe. If no war ensue, we should have displayed our force to
our Allies, to our enemies. The most dangerous kind of invasion was
to be apprehended from Sweden--but would she dare to attack the
Ally of Russia? In territorial contests, we are not bound to assist
Hanover; but in this quarrel Hanover has nothing to do; they could
suffer only for us. France will not fight where we please, nor be
so complaisant as to distinguish between the King and the Elector.
What disgrace had fallen on the nation for abandoning the Catalans!
If we should desert our most intimate Allies, what Ally would stand
by us? The King of Prussia would hear of our debates; would be told
that many opposed the treaties, lest offensive to him; that the
rest denied there was any intention of offence; therefore he would
hear that all England [was] for him. He applied with great aptness,
and told with great address the fable of the shepherd treating with
the wolf. The beast objected that the shepherd had damned dogs,
whom he mentioned like Cossacs and Calmucs--not that he feared
them!--but their barking disturbed him. The shepherd would not give
up his dogs--yet the neutrality was well kept.
To Murray and Lord Egmont and other champions of the treaties, Pitt
replied in a speech of most admirable and ready wit that flashed
from him for the space of an hour and half; and accompanied with
action that would have added reputation to Garrick. He said, the
Attorney-General had spoken so long, not because he had not thought
enough to shorten his discourse, but glad to lose the question
in the immensity of matter. However, he hoped that the King of
Prussia, who, it seems, was so well informed of our Debates, would
not hear the application of this fable, and that Murray had treated
him like a _Fera Naturæ_. But, in fact, these treaties from simple
questions had become all things to all men. As a man with sleight
of hand presents a card to the company, ’tis yours--now yours--and
very pleasantly takes the money out of the pockets of all the
spectators. But whatever explanations were used to pervert its
meaning, the Act of Settlement did intend to divest the Crown of
the power of declaring war for Foreign Dominions. He would quote
poetry; for truth in verse was as good as if delivered in the
dullest prose--
Corruption’s gilded hand
May put by Justice.
MEAS. FOR MEAS.
If to make war eventually was a breach of that act, as a juror he
would find these treaties such a violation. The very payment of
money to Hesse and levying troops was an overt-act--but a daring
Ministry had assumed to be the Parliament of Great Britain! He
desired to know whether the 12,000 men formerly stipulated for
England from Muscovy were to be included in the 55,000 now engaged
for Hanover. If included, the bargain was still dearer--and we
were to give 500,000_l._ to 30,000 men to invite them to live upon
murder and rapine!--but this shifting measure, like a diamond,
the more brilliant the more it shone. “But come,” said he, “let
us consider this northern star, that will not shine with any
light of its own--Great Britain must be the sun of all this solar
system:--could Russia, without our assistance, support her own
troops? She will not prove the star of the Wise Men--they must go
with presents. ’Tis a miserable star, that you must get to shine,
that you must rub up; but the real wise man--
“Quæ desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit.
“By this measure,” continued he, “is not Prussia thrown into the
power of France? What can he answer, if France proposes to march
an army into Germany? If he refuses to join them, will they not
threaten to leave him at the mercy of the Russians? This is one
of the effects of our sage negotiations--not to mention that we
have wasted between ten and eleven millions in subsidies! Were our
circumstances equal to the avarice of German Courts, our system
might last a little longer; but now we are lost _in limine_, in
the first outset of the war. Shall we not set our impossibility
of supporting such an extensive war against the argument of his
Majesty’s honour being engaged? or shall we continue to go begging
to every beggarly Court in Europe? The Ministers foresaw our ill
success at sea, and _prudently_ laid a nest-egg for a war on the
continent. Indeed, to induce us, we have been told of ancient
and modern story, of Greece and Carthage. I have not,” said he,
“read those histories these many years; they are very well for
declamation; but I think I recollect enough to see how improperly
they are quoted in this Debate. Suppose Thebes and Sparta, and the
other Grecian Commonwealths fallen from their former power; would
Athens have gone alone and paid all the rest? Would Demosthenes
have alarmed Greece, when they would no longer hear him?--but
Athens put herself on board her fleet, and recovered her land,
because she fought where she could be superior. Not giving succour
to Hannibal indeed was wrong, because he was already on land and
successful, and might have marched, as Prince Eugene proposed, with
a torch to Versailles.
“Another poet,--I recollect,” continued he, “a good deal of poetry
to-day,--says, _Expende Hannibalem_--weigh him, weigh him--I have
weighed him--what good did his glory procure to his country? It
puts me in mind of what the same poet says:
“---- I, demens, curre per Alpes,
Ut pueris placeas, et _declamatio_ fias!”
He dwelt on his duty to the King, and how harsh it must be for
Ministers to be honest--but perhaps the resistance given to these
treaties might save the Administration from a continent war. Yet
himself would nevermore place confidence in the authors, advisers,
adopters of this measure. He ended with a prayer, that conviction
might change perverted Ministers to save us; or that British
spirit might exterminate such measures as shake our Government; and
that British spirit might influence in British councils.
The Russian treaty was approved by 263 to 69. The Hessian by 259 to
72.
After these Debates, the Parliament adjourned for the Christmas
holidays, during which the changes in the Administration were
settled. Charles Townshend was dismissed: the Duke of Bedford was
persuaded by Mr. Fox’s arts and friends to ask the exalted post
of Lord Privy Seal for the Duchess’s brother, Lord Gower--a vast
promotion for so young a man! Mr. Fox would have engaged his Grace
to promise to drop all asperity to the Duke of Newcastle, but he
frankly refused. The ductile Duke of Marlborough had ceded the
Privy Seal, to accommodate this measure, and took the Ordnance
with little ceremony from General Ligonier: a violence, deservedly
esteemed hard--and not judicious, for the representative of the
great Marlborough to dispossess almost the only man in England who
approached the services of that hero, and who had the additional
merit, though a Frenchman, of having saved the country[50] which
had so humbled his own. The old man felt it sensibly--but as the
King always consulted him on military affairs preferably to his son
the Duke, of whom he could not stifle a little jealousy--the Duke,
still less disposed to check a jealousy of preference, eagerly
countenanced the removal of Ligonier. The latter had all the
gallant gaiety of his nation. Polished from foppery by age, and by
living in a more thinking country, he was universally beloved and
respected. His successor, the Duke of Marlborough, had virtues and
sense enough to deserve esteem, but always lost it by forfeiting
respect. He was honest and generous; capable of giving the most
judicious advice, and of following the worst. His profusion was
never well directed, and a variety of changes in his political
conduct having never been weighed previously, or preserved
subsequently, joined to the greatest bashfulness and indistinction
in his articulation, had confirmed the world in a very mean opinion
of his understanding.
Lord Duplin and Lord Darlington were made joint Paymasters:
Doddington, again a Courtier, returned to his old office of
Treasurer of the Navy: Lord Bateman and Mr. Edgecombe, the one
nephew of the Duke of Marlborough, the other equally attached to
Mr. Fox, were placed in the Admiralty. The Duke of Newcastle, the
Duke of Bedford, the Chancellor, and a little time afterwards
Mr. Fox, had each a nomination to the Board of Trade, and placed
there their friends, Judge Talbot, Mr. Rigby, Soames, Jenyns the
poet-laureate of the Yorkes, and young Hamilton. Lord Hilsborough
was made Treasurer of the Chambers; Lord Hobart succeeded him
as Comptroller of the Household: Lord Gage was made Paymaster
of the Pensions; George Selwyn Paymaster of the Board of Works.
That old rag of Lord Bath’s foolish quota to an administration,
the mute Harry Furnese, was made a Lord of the Treasury, because
he understood the French actions. To him was suddenly joined Mr.
O’Brien, on the very morning that Mr. Ellis was to have kissed
hands; but the Duke of Newcastle, who had recovered his insolence
now the treaties were over, would not suffer a creature of Mr.
Fox at the Board of Treasury. Ellis was put off with a portion of
the Vice-Treasurer of Ireland: it was usually in two persons: Sir
William Yonge was just dead; Lord Cholmondeley, the other, received
as associates, Ellis and Lord Sandwich, who was destined for Chief
Justice in Eyre by the Duke and Mr. Fox, but the same authority
which had set Ellis aside marked Lord Sandwich too; and as if there
was a choice between the outcasts of former silly Administrations,
gave the preference to Lord Sandys.
It has been mentioned that Lord Barrington was appointed Secretary
at War in the new system: he and Ellis may easily be described
together; they were shades of the same character; the former a
little brighter by better parts, the other a little more amiable
by less interestedness. Lord Barrington was always assiduous to
make his fortune; Ellis, meaning the same thing, was rather intent
on not hurting his. The former did not aim at making friends,
but patrons; the latter dreaded making enemies. Lord Barrington
had a lisp and a tedious precision that prejudiced one against
him; yet he did not want a sort of vivacity that would have shone
oftener, if the rind it was to penetrate had been thinner. Ellis
had a fluency that was precise too, but it was a stream that
flowed so smoothly and so shallow, that it seemed to design to
let every pebble it passed over be distinguished. Lord Barrington
made civility and attention a duty; Ellis endeavoured to persuade
you that that duty was a pleasure. You saw that Lord Barrington
would not have been well-bred, if he had not been interested: you
saw that if Ellis had been a hermit, he would have bowed to a
cock-sparrow.
There remained one purchase to the Government to be completed,
which though not terminated till the beginning of the succeeding
year, I shall comprehend in the account of this expensive
establishment. This was Hume Campbell; annihilated in the eyes of
the world and in his own, by Mr. Pitt’s philippic; still precious
to the Duke of Newcastle, who was now as injudiciously constant to
an useless bargain, as he was apt to be fickle to more serviceable
converts. Lord Lothian, after many negotiations and reluctances,
was dismissed with a pension of 1200_l._ a year from the office of
Lord Registrar of Scotland, which was conferred on Hume Campbell
for life. Secure with such a provision, he never once provoked
Pitt’s wrath; and repaid this munificence with one only scrap of an
ignorant speech on the Plate-tax.
It is necessary to recapitulate the extravagant and lasting charge
which this new caprice or consequence of the Duke of Newcastle’s
caprices brought on the Government. Sir Thomas Robinson had a
pension of 2000_l._ a year on Ireland for thirty years. Mr.
Arundel, to make room for Lord Hilsborough, 2000_l._ a year.
Sir Conyers Darcy 1600_l._ a year. Lord Lothian 1200_l._ Lord
Cholmondeley, to indemnify him for the division of his office,
600_l._ a year. Here was a load of near 8000_l._ a year incurred
for many years to purchase a change in the Administration--for how
short a season will soon appear!
But if this traffic for a partial revolution in a system, still
upheld, was scandalously inglorious, at least it called forth
a display of abilities that revived the lustre of the House of
Commons, and in the point of eloquence carried it to a height it
perhaps had never known. After so long a dose of genius, there
at once appeared near thirty men, of whom one was undoubtedly a
real orator, a few were most masterly, many very able, not one
was a despicable speaker. Pitt, Fox, Murray, Hume Campbell,
Charles Townshend, Lord George Sackville, Henry Conway, Legge,
Sir George Lyttelton, Oswald, George Grenville, Lord Egmont,
Nugent, Doddington, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Lord Strange,
Beckford, Elliot, Lord Barrington, Sir George Lee, Martin, Dr. Hay,
Northey, Potter, Ellis, Lord Hilsborough, Lord Duplin, and Sir
Francis Dashwood, these men, perhaps, in their several degrees,
comprehended all the various powers of eloquence, art, reasoning,
satire, learning, persuasion, wit, business, spirit, and plain
common sense. Eloquence as an art was but little studied but by
Pitt: the beauties of language were a little, and but a little
more cultivated, except by him and his family. Yet the grace and
force of words were so natural to him, that when he avoided them,
he almost lost all excellence. As set speeches were no longer
in vogue, except on introductory or very solemn occasions, the
pomp and artful resources of oratory were in a great measure
banished; and the inconveniences attending long and unpremeditated
discourses, must (as I have delivered them faithfully,) take off
from, though they ought to add to, their merit. Let those who hear
me extol, and at the same time find Mr. Pitt’s orations not answer
to my encomiums, reflect how bright his talents would shine, if we
saw none of his, but which, like the productions of ancient great
masters, had been prepared for his audience, and had been polished
by himself for the admiration of ages! Similes, and quotations,
and metaphors were fallen into disrepute, deservedly: even the
parallels from old story, which, during the virulence against
Sir Robert Walpole, had been so much encouraged, were exhausted
and disregarded. It was not the same case with invectives; in
that respect, eloquence was little more chastened. Debates,
where no personalities broke out, engaged too little attention.
Yet, upon the whole, the style that prevailed was plain, manly,
argumentative; and the liberty of discussing all topics in a
government so free, and the very newspapers and pamphlets that
skimmed or expatiated on all those subjects, and which the most
idle and most illiterate could not avoid perusing, gave an air of
knowledge and information to the most trifling speakers.
I shall not enter into a detail of all the various talents of the
men I have mentioned; the genius and characters of many of them
have been marked already in different parts of this work. Most of
them were more or less imperfect; I pretend to consider the whole
number but as different shades of oratory. Northey saw clearly, but
it was for a very little way. Lord Strange was the most absurd man
that ever existed with a very clear head: his distinctions were
seized as rapidly as others advance positions. Nugent’s assertions
would have made everybody angry, if they had not made everybody
laugh; but he had a debonnaire jollity that pleased, and though
a bombast speaker, was rather extravagant from his vociferation,
than from his arguments, which were often very solid. Dr. Hay’s
manner and voice resembled Lord Granville’s, not his matter; Lord
Granville was novelty itself; Dr. Hay seldom said anything new; his
speeches were fair editions of the thoughts of other men: he should
always have opened a Debate! Oswald overflowed with a torrent of
sense and logic: Doddington was always searching for wit; and
what was surprising, generally found it. Oswald hurried argument
along with him; Doddington teased it to accompany him. Sir George
Lyttelton and Legge were as opposite in their manners; the latter
concise and pointed; the former, diffuse and majestic. Legge’s
speeches seemed the heads of chapters to Sir George Lyttelton’s
dissertations. Lord Duplin aimed at nothing but understanding
business and explaining it. Sir Francis Dashwood, who loved to
know, and who cultivated a roughness of speech, affected to know
no more than what he had learned from an unadorned understanding.
George Grenville and Hume Campbell were tragic speakers of very
different kinds; the latter far the superior. Grenville’s were
tautologous lamentations; Campbell’s bold reprehensions. Had they
been engaged in a conspiracy, Grenville, like Brutus, would have
struck and wept; Campbell would have rated him for weeping. The
six other chief speakers may, from their ages and rank in the
House, be properly thrown into two classes.
Mr. Conway soothed and persuaded; Lord George Sackville informed
and convinced; Charles Townshend[51] astonished; but was too
severe to persuade, and too bold to convince. Conway seemed to
speak only because he thought his opinion might be of service;
Lord George because he knew that others misled, or were misled;
Charles Townshend, neither caring whether himself or others were
in the right, only spoke to show how well he could adorn a bad
cause, or demolish a good one. It was frequent with him, as soon
as he had done speaking, to run to the opposite side of the House,
and laugh with those he had attacked, at those who had defended.
One loved the first, one feared the second, one admired the last
without the least mixture of esteem. Mr. Conway had a cold reserve,
which seemed only to veil goodness: Lord George, with a frankness
in his speech, had a mystery in his conduct, which was far from
inviting. Charles Townshend had such openness in all his behaviour,
that he seemed to think duplicity the simplest conduct: he made
the innocence of others look like art. But what superiority does
integrity contract, when even uniformity of acting could exalt so
many men above the most conspicuous talents that appeared in so
rhetorical an age! Mr. Townshend was perhaps the only man who had
ever genius enough to preserve reason and argument in a torrent of
epigrams, satire, and antithesis!
The other parliamentary chiefs were as variously distinguished
by their abilities. Pitt, illustrious as he was in the House of
Commons, would have shone still more in an assembly of inferior
capacity: his talents for dazzling were exposed to whoever did
not fear his sword and abuse, or could detect the weakness of his
arguments. Fox was ready for both. Murray, who, at the beginning
of the session, was awed by Pitt, finding himself supported by
Fox, surmounted his fears, and convinced the House, and Pitt too,
of his superior abilities: he grew most uneasy to the latter.
Pitt could only attack, Murray only defend: Fox, the boldest and
ablest champion, was still more formed to worry: but the keenness
of his sabre was blunted by the difficulty with which he drew it
from the scabbard; I mean, the hesitation and ungracefulness of
his delivery took off from the force of his arguments. Murray,
the brightest genius of the three, had too much and too little
of the lawyer: he refined too much, and could wrangle too little
for a popular assembly. Pitt’s figure was commanding; Murray’s
engaging from a decent openness; Fox’s dark and troubled--yet the
latter was the only agreeable man: Pitt could not unbend; Murray in
private was inelegant; Fox was cheerful, social, communicative.
In conversation, none of them had wit; Murray never had: Fox had
in his speeches from clearness of head and asperity of argument:
Pitt’s wit was genuine, not tortured into the service, like the
quaintnesses of my Lord Chesterfield.
I have endeavoured in this book (and consequently shall be much
more concise in others, on Parliamentary Debates,) to give an idea
of the manner and genius of our chief orators, particularly of Mr.
Pitt, the most celebrated: his greatest failure was in argument,
which made him, contrary to the rule of great speakers, almost
always commence the Debate: he spoke too often, and he spoke too
long. Of the above-recorded speeches, his first, on the Address,
was sublime and various; on the Army, at once florid and alarming;
on the Militia, clear, unadorned, and like a man of business: that
against Hume Campbell, most bitter; the last, full of wit; but
being hurt at the reflections on his pomp and invective, he took up
in the rest of that session a style of plain and scarce elevated
conversation, that had not one merit of any of his preceding
harangues.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] Mr. Fox, by Lord Hardwicke, on the Marriage Bill.
[32] The resignations on Lord Granville’s administration of three
days.
[33] The House had very lately been much offended at a Marquis St.
Simon, a Frenchman, taking notes in the gallery.
[34] The Scotch. The young Pretender, in one of his declarations,
mentioned our pamphlets and libels as proofs of the dissatisfaction
of the nation.
[35] A court where trifling causes are tried in the country; called
so, from country fellows coming thither with dusty shoes, _avec les
pies poudres_.
[36] It is worth remembering, that Hume Campbell, who now declaimed
against invectives, and so much commended Sir Robert Walpole, had
formerly in a speech called that Minister _a tympany of corruption_!
[37] The Duke of Bucks--alluding to the Duke of Newcastle.
[38] Spotted like a weasel.
[39] In 1744, when the great heats were raised against the
Hanoverian troops, Lord Barrington, _then_ in Opposition, used this
phrase, “If an angel should come and tell us, I will separate you
from Hanover, I will make you an island again.”
[40] Picture of the Duke of Newcastle, his great uncle.
[41] Baron Bothmar, the Hanoverian Minister.
[42] Lord Granby and George Townshend moved the Vote of Credit in
the preceding session.
[43] Lord Holderness.
[44] The Duke of Bedford had received 1500_l._ for electing
Jeffery French at one of his boroughs in the west; but he dying
immediately, his heir sued the Duke for the money, who paid it,
rather than let the cause be heard.
[45] Alexander Hume Campbell died of a fever, July 19, 1760.
[46] Lord Granville.
[47] Horace Walpole.
[48] Lord Granville.
[49] The Rebellion.
[50] At Laffelt.
[51] Vide Appendix.
1756.
Laissant toujours avilir sa dignitè, pour en jouir.
_Volt. Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. 140.