Chapter XXVIII (1)

Prorogation of the Parliament.--Walpole’s Conduct on the dismissal
of General Conway for voting against Ministers on the Question of
the legality of General Warrants.--Trial of Carteret Webbe for
Perjury.--The Earl of Northumberland Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

On the 19th the Parliament rose. And now it is that I am obliged to weave the history of my own conduct into a large part of the following narration. Two considerable eras having taken their complexion from my councils, the thread of my story would be imperfect, if I omitted what relates to my own behaviour. I shall give it as briefly as the subject and clearness will permit, and hope the reader will excuse egotisms where no glory was the result of my actions. Chance, more than design, presented the means; and if the moments were luckily seized, it was from no merit, no foresight of mine, that those moments were brought on.

Having fully seen the incapacity of the Opposition, sensible how ill they were united, and foreseeing that their strength would rather diminish than augment, and at the same time flattering myself, from the resistance which the Ministry had experienced, that they would be less flippant in their innovations on liberty, which was fortified by getting rid of general warrants, I had determined to give over politics; and to withdraw myself from shallow councils. I was preparing to make a visit to my friend and relation,[463] Lord Hertford, at Paris, when, two days after the rising of the Parliament, I was stunned with notice of Mr. Conway being turned out of the King’s bedchamber, and dismissed from the command of his regiment of dragoons. As _I_ had been a principal cause of this unworthy treatment, and of this destruction of his fortunes, nothing could be more sensible to me than this blow. Nor could I remain a moment in doubt, from the complexion of some in power, but that the stroke was aimed still more at me than at Mr. Conway, though directly I was out of their reach. The Bedford faction I knew were my mortal enemies. Yet I saw, too, that Mr. Conway had a share in the resentment of others. Grenville was not of a nature to pardon the slight Mr. Conway had made both of his favour and power. He had offended Lord Sandwich, too, by refusing to influence the chaplain of his regiment to vote for him at Cambridge; and Lord Holland had long groaned for an opportunity of revenging himself on Lord Hertford for his treatment of Bunbury. The tone of the ruling Administration was despotic, nor had they forgotten how lately they had trembled with apprehension of losing their power. Here were more than motives sufficient to egg on general or particular vengeance. And in general I must leave it; for after long search and much information, I cannot fix the deed on any single man. There was but one man among the suspected that ever solemnly denied having a share in it; and he constantly did: I mean Lord Bute. All the rest have charged it on others, though still without disavowing having had a hand in it themselves. The King often afterwards protested to Lord Hertford that his Ministers[464] forced him to it. Grenville declared that his Majesty was more eager for it than any of them. The Duke of Bedford alone was frank, and avowed that though he had not recommended the measure, he had told his colleagues, when they proposed to remove Mr. Conway from the bedchamber only, that it was foolish to provoke him by halves; and that to leave him his regiment, and take away the bedchamber, would be telling other officers that they might oppose the Court with impunity.

Be it as it may, the boldness of the step was almost unprecedented. Sir Robert Walpole had dismissed the Lords Westmoreland[465] and Cobham[466] from the command of regiments; and Mr. Pitt from a cornetcy; but it was not till by a personal, violent, and constant opposition, that they had made themselves as obnoxious as possible. Yet even that measure, provoked as it was, had occasioned great clamour; and had contributed to animate the Opposition, which at last overthrew that Minister. Mr. Grenville had joined in that Opposition, had risen on that foundation; and the Duke of Bedford had signed a protest against the measure of dismissing officers for parliamentary reasons. How different was the case now! The temper and fairness of the man disgraced, his aversion to faction, the disinterestedness of his character, his general co-operation with the measures of Government, his being recently recommended to favour by Prince Ferdinand for his services in Germany, and his being brother to the ambassador at Paris--all these were considerations that made the measure amazing. But when it was observed that this punishment was inflicted for a single[467] vote in Parliament, when it was evident that that vote had been peculiarly conscientious, and given in a cause avowed by the nation, and against a practice certain of being, as it soon after was, condemned by the Courts of Law, and though maintained by Parliament in retrospect, yet given up for the future by that very Parliament as pernicious; when the context, too, appeared to be, that military men in Parliament were to forfeit their profession and the merit of their services, unless implicitly devoted to the Court; could these reflections, when coupled with the arbitrary measures which the nation had observed to be the system of the Court, fail to occasion the blackest presages? Lord Bute, in truth, had slunk away from his own victory; but Grenville remained, and had Bute’s tools, and Sandwich and Rigby, to war with on the constitution, and Lord Mansfield and Norton ready to turn the law against itself.

It was a beautiful contrast, the behaviour of the person aggrieved. His temper, decency, and submission were unalterable and unequalled. He neither complained nor tried to instil a sense of his injuries into a single friend, though he wished they should take his part, and resent for him. He could not have entertained a wish worse founded: his friends were rejoiced at not being called upon; and had no ambition to share the crown of his martyrdom. There lived not three more interested men than the Duke of Argyle,[468] Lord Lorn, and Lord Frederick Campbell, the father and brothers of Lady Ailesbury,[469] Mr. Conway’s wife. The first loved money, and had incurred unpleasant suspicions in his efforts to obtain it. Lord Lorn[470] was sordidly covetous, and had not sense enough to foresee a blessing in futurity beyond the first half-crown that glittered in his eyes. Lord Frederick[471] was sensible, shrewd, and selfish; and on this and a subsequent crisis showed that no connection or obligation could stand against the eagerness with which he pursued immediate fortune. Nothing else weighed with him, except the inveteracy of national prejudice. As Mr. Conway had acted in opposition to Scottish measures, Lord Frederick, forgetting Mr. Conway’s friendship and kindness, and his own youthful situation, and borne away by a hot temper, often and indecently attacked him in Parliament, though without any brilliancy of parts to colour over such improper behaviour. The Duke of Richmond, who had married Lady Ailesbury’s daughter, kept himself more free from blame. He had been witness to the integrity of Mr. Conway’s conduct at the conference with Mr. Grenville, and certainly loved him, though not enough to participate his disgrace. The Duke, however, offered to take a part in Parliament if Mr. Conway’s friends would move for an inquiry into the cause of his dismission; but that offer did not include his Grace’s engaging any farther against the Court.

There was still another relation of Mr. Conway more deeply involved in his disgrace, and more immediately called upon to resent it; his brother, Lord Hertford. Yet there were both real and specious reasons for his submitting to it.[472] Mr. Conway had taken this part, not only without consulting him, but when he must have known how unwelcome it would be to Lord Hertford, then in the King’s service both at home and abroad, and well treated; connected with the Ministry, and ever desirous of being so with all Administrations. Lord Hertford had even, after his brother’s first vote, made remonstrances to him, though in vain. On the other hand, honour, interest in a general sense, and personal resentment, called on Lord Hertford to espouse his brother’s quarrel. Ambassador in France, where no officer was ever broken but for cowardice or some atrocious crime, it could but strike the French Court that the Ambassador stood in little estimation at home, when such an affront was put on the family. Could he expect more consideration if he acquiesced? On the other hand, should the Opposition succeed, in which, besides his brother, were his wife’s nephew, the Duke of Grafton,[473] and his old friends, whom he had already offended by not acting with them, what could he expect but, at best, the humiliating circumstance of being saved by his brother whom he had abandoned? Nor could Lord Hertford doubt but that Mr. Conway partly suffered on his account, as far as Lord Holland had any share in the measure. Yet, though there had been no instance of such a disgrace remaining unresented, much less when such a character was so unjustly treated, not a single resignation marked that the sufferer had either a friend or relation in the place. He was at once sacrificed by the Court, and abandoned by his own family.

It became the more incumbent on me to make him all the reparation in my power. I offered him six thousand pounds, which he refused; and I altered my will, giving him almost my whole fortune unless his regiment should be restored to him; a destination with which I acquainted him. And though it certainly would not augment the gift, I determined to hazard all I had rather than not revenge both him and myself. Grenville, the very day before the dismission of Mr. Conway, whether to detach me from him, or fearing I should make use of the indiscretion he had been guilty of, ordered the payment of my bills at the Treasury; a step that, far from soothing, but served to increase my resentment. I dreaded lest Mr. Conway should think I had kept any underhand measures with the Treasury; but I soon convinced both him and the world how steadily I embraced the cause of my friend. Yet for the first time in my life I acted with a phlegm of which I did not know myself capable. I shut myself up in the country for three days, till I had conquered the first ebullitions of my rage, and then returned to town with a face of satisfaction, which some thought indifference; and others joy at having dipped Mr. Conway in Opposition. Both were mistaken. I knew that both Mr. Conway and the Opposition were little formed for the business. I had everything to discourage me, and nothing but perseverance and the firmness of my own temper to carry me on. I foresaw, indeed, that the persecution he had undergone would raise the character of Mr. Conway, would lend him an importance he would never have assumed, and might one day place him at the head of this country. I foresaw that the violence and unprincipled rashness of the Ministers would conduct them to a precipice; but I should far overrate my own sagacity, if I pretended to have discovered that those prospects were near enough to administer any comfort to my impatience. I knew the folly of those I was to act with. I could not flatter myself it would be exceeded by the folly of those I was to act against.

If self-interest restrained Mr. Conway’s family from embracing his defence, it was as natural that the Opposition should caress him. A martyr is as creditable to a party in politics as to a sect in religion. Yet so decent and so dignified was the Opposition of that time, that they expressed none of the heat and ardour with which parties usually seize such an event. The Duke of Devonshire, indeed, came to me, and with great delicacy desired that I would in his name make an offer to Mr. Conway of a thousand pounds a year, till his regiment should be restored.[474] This noble offer Mr. Conway as generously declined. However, it gave lustre to our cause; and it was my purpose to raise as high as I could the character of our party, and to spread the flames of emulation from such examples. The Ministerial tools, on the other hand, were not idle, but began to defame Mr. Conway as a spiritless and inactive General, reviving in scandalous papers the miscarriage at Rochfort.[475] This artillery, however, we turned upon them, and displayed the malignity of not being content with ruining him, without proceeding to the grossest defamation. Mr. Conway, too, by my advice, called upon the detractors to avow themselves, and, if they dared, take up the weapons like men, which soon silenced that dirty kind of war.

But these prosperous beginnings were almost all I could accomplish. Every step I took I found discouragement and disappointment. There was no union in our party, nor could I bring about any. At first I laboured to form a little junto of the most considerable of our friends in the House of Commons, who should plan our future measures and conduct them. But of those I could not prevail on any three to assemble and enter into concert. Legge was dying; Charles Yorke was proud, insincere, waiting for an opportunity of making his own bargain, and offended that Mr. Pitt was disposed to make Pratt Chancellor; though the latter, for the good of the cause, was willing to waive the Seals. Charles Townshend, neglected by the Court, seemed zealously attached to us; unfortunately, we could neither do with him nor without him; yet his jealousy of Grenville and fear of Mr. Conway would have fixed him, if anything could. There was another man of whose art and abilities I had a high opinion, and who was as practicable as the others I have mentioned were little so,--I mean Lord George Sackville. But insuperable difficulties kept him from us too. Pitt had proscribed him; Newcastle did not love him; the Duke of Devonshire was too cautious to join him; and Conway, knowing Lord George had been his enemy, though it had never come to an open rupture, would not listen to any connection with him, but pleaded the stains on his character, and the enmity borne to him by Prince Ferdinand. I lost my temper at finding that, whilst our enemies stuck at nothing, every phantom and every fancy was to clog our councils and retard our advances. The dignity of great Lords, and their want of sense, the treachery of some, the piques of others, all had their operation, and not a single prejudice was removed to facilitate our attempts. I had surmounted my repugnance to Newcastle, and, though in truth to little purpose, had consented to advise with him. He was still the same; at once busy and inactive, fond of plotting, but impossible to be put in motion. Nor, indeed, propose what I would, could I obtain to have a single measure carried into execution.

But what hampered us most was Mr. Pitt. He justly resented having been abandoned by Newcastle, Devonshire, and the Whigs. He despised both Charles Yorke and Charles Townshend; and though he expressed civil applause of Mr. Conway, would neither connect with him nor see him. He at once talked of an Administration to be composed of great Whig Lords, and of his own resolution not to force himself on the King; that is, he wished the great Lords should force him on the King without his concurrence, that he might have the merit of disavowing them, and of profiting of their weight. Conway was as difficult as Pitt, and too proud to make any advances to him. Thus, wherever I turned, there were no facilities. Even Lord Temple, accustomed to run and meet faction in the highways, seemed cold and indisposed to connection with us. At the same time I heard that a treaty was carrying on between him and his brother George; a report which, though true, greatly deceived me; for, concluding that Lord Temple was too firmly united with Mr. Pitt to negotiate without him, I imputed the coldness of both to an approaching league of the whole family; whereas the truth was, though then a secret to all the world, that Mr. Pitt and Lord Temple were on bad terms; the former disapproving the violence of Temple; and Temple being enraged that Mr. Pitt would not lend himself to all his passions.

Perceiving so little hope of union amongst ourselves, I conceived a better prospect from the factions of the Court, which, by every art I could devise, I endeavoured to inflame. I soon learned how wide the breach was growing between Lord Bute and Grenville; and though I then looked on the former as the more dangerous of the two, and of all men was determined not to connect with him; yet to his friends I held a plausible language, insinuating that it was possible he might be forgiven by our great Lords, and left them to think that, if the Favourite withdrew his protection from Grenville and the Bedfords, his case would by no means be desperate with the Opposition. In the same kind of style I talked to the friends of Grenville; still imputing Mr. Conway’s disgrace alternately to the other faction, accordingly as I conversed with either. I saw that, hostile as they were, despair must cement their union. Both would be more prompt to quarrel if they thought themselves not proscribed by us.

An incident fell out favourable to this plan. Grenville, ever averse to Lord Holland, had destined his place of Paymaster to be shared between Lord North and Stanley, and they had even taken joy on it. But Lord Bute had prevented it being carried into execution; and Lord Holland now came from France, stung with this insult: though as the passing of his accounts was in agitation, he for the present stifled his resentment, and affected to pay court to Grenville. As, however, to hoodwink me to his own share in that business, and to inflame my anger to Grenville, he laid the chief blame of Conway’s disgrace on the latter, I indulged him, as usual, in the imagination that he deceived me; and, as if to vent my own passion, blew up his as high as I could against Grenville. From Lord Holland I heard what had escaped me. Conway at the end of the Session, on a motion for thanking the King for reducing the German demand, had made a panegyric on Prince Ferdinand and the hereditary Prince, saying how hard it was that _their_ country, which had suffered so much for _us_, should not have ample indemnification. Grenville had answered, that surely if the King had been content to lower the demands for Hanover, he was at liberty to reduce those of Brunswick. This had passed in a thin debate; nor had I been present. But Lord George Sackville had remarked, and said, “Conway has undone himself.” It was, it seems, an irremissible crime to applaud the hero who had commanded our armies and given them victory; and to plead for another hero who had married the King’s own sister and fought his battles!

I shall omit the detail of many other stratagems that I formed for annoying the Administration, they having been damped or annihilated by the supineness of my confederates. The summer was in every respect unfortunate to us; and by the Session following, we scarce deserved the name of a party. Death took off some of our chief leaders, who, though they would not lead us, yet, by the sanction of their names, had kept together an appearance of numbers, which dwindled away as our hopes of success vanished. What farther regards us as a party will be mentioned in its place. I now return to the other occurrences of the year.

Two vacant garters were bestowed on the Duke of Mecklenberg[476] and Lord Halifax. About the same time died at Paris the King’s mistress, Madame de Pompadour. She retained her power to the last, though their amour had long been exhausted. The Duc de Choiseul, whom she had destined for Minister, succeeded her in the King’s confidence without a rival.

May 4th, Beardmore, one of the persecuted writers, carried his cause against the messengers, and recovered one thousand pounds for damages.

On the 9th Mr. Conway’s late regiment was given to the Earl of Pembroke; not without occasioning remarks a little disadvantageous to the standard of his Majesty’s piety. Lord Pembroke, one of the wildest young men of the times, had been dismissed from the King’s bedchamber for debauching and eloping with a young lady of distinction, though married to a more beautiful woman, sister of the Duke of Marlborough. Nobody could tell what the King had to do to interfere in that intrigue: but having done so, it seemed little consistent to reward a young profligate[477] with the spoils of a man strictly virtuous and conscientious. It was now remembered that at the beginning of this reign, the Earl of Dartmouth, a young nobleman as pious as Lord Pembroke was licentious, had applied to be of the King’s bedchamber, but had been rejected by Lord Bute, lest so sanctimonious a man should gain too far on his Majesty’s piety. An instance that if it proved the religion of the King, did not bear witness to that of the Favourite. But in such a theatre of hypocrisy, it mattered little who was the principal impostor.

On the 15th died Dr. Osbaldiston, Bishop of London; and the next day Lord Chancellor Henley was created Earl of Northington, a step not communicated to the Duke of Bedford, who much resented it. But Grenville was more mortified, who found himself excluded from the nomination of the new Bishop of London. He had wished to raise Newton[478] to that mitre, but Lord Bute procured it for Terrick. This man, with no glimmering of parts or knowledge, had, on the merit of a sonorous delivery, and by an assiduity of back-stairs address, wriggled himself into a sort of general favour; and by timing his visits luckily, had been promoted by the Duke of Devonshire to the See of Peterborough. Yet he had been of the first, notoriously obliged to that Duke, to abandon him on his fall, sailing headlong with the tide after the Favourite’s triumph. Again, when the Favourite retired, Terrick, who was minister of my parish,[479] was lavish to me of invectives against that Lord; and sifted me eagerly to learn in what channel Court favour was likely to flow. Having soon perceived his mistake, he had made out a distant affinity with Worseley,[480] a creature of Lord Bute, and a kind of riding-master to the King; and now to Grenville’s surprise rose, all unworthy as he was, to so eminent a station in the Church. This detail I communicated to Dr. Lyttelton, Bishop of Carlisle, who adhered to George Grenville amidst their family breaches; and who, being both gossiping and mischievous, kept up an acquaintance with me of ancient date, that he might from my warmth collect materials to carry to Grenville. I took care to furnish him according to his wish. It was wormwood to Grenville to learn this proof of the Favourite’s still subsisting ascendant; and when I had once set them on the scent, I knew they would touch on it in more instances than this.

On the 22nd Philip Carteret Webbe was tried for perjury, being accused of having forsworn himself in the cause against Wilkes. The jury stayed out fifty-five minutes, but at last acquitted him: a vindication that no more cleared his character than conviction would have made it worse.

The Earl of Northumberland[481] returned from Ireland, where his profusion and ostentation had been so great,[482] that it seemed to lay a dangerous precedent for succeeding governors, who must risk unpopularity if more parsimonious; or the ruin of their fortune, should they imitate his example. At his departure he broke with William Gerard Hamilton,[483] his secretary, and dismissed him to make way for the Earl of Drogheda,[484] the favourite both of Lady Northumberland and the Primate.

Lord Northumberland had an advantageous figure and much courtesy in his address, which being supported by the most expensive magnificence, made him exceedingly popular with the meaner sort. They who viewed him nearer, were not the dupes of his affability or pretensions. The old nobility beheld his pride with envy and anger; and thence were the less disposed to overlook the littleness of his temper, or the slender portion he possessed of abilities; for his expense was a mere sacrifice to vanity, as appeared by his sordid and illiberal behaviour at play. Nor were his talents more solid than his generosity. With mechanic application to every branch of knowledge, he possessed none beyond the surface; and having an unbounded propensity to discussion, he disgusted his hearers without informing them. Yet his equals were but ill-grounded in their contempt of him. Very few of them knew so much; and there were still fewer that had not more noxious vices, and as ungenerous hearts. Lord Northumberland’s foibles ought to have passed almost for virtues in an age so destitute of intrinsic merit.[485]

The Countess of Northumberland was a jovial heap of contradictions. The blood of all the Percies and Seymours swelled in her veins and in her fancy; while her person was more vulgar than anything but her conversation, which was larded indiscriminately with stories of her ancestors and her footmen. Show, and crowds, and junketting, were her endless pursuits. She was familiar with the mob, while stifled with diamonds; and yet was attentive to the most minute privileges of her rank, while almost shaking hands with a cobbler. Nothing was more mean than her assiduity about the King and Queen, whom she termed her _Master_ and _Mistress_; and yet, though indirectly reprimanded by the latter, she persisted in following her Majesty to the theatres with a longer retinue of domestics than waited on the Queen herself. She had revived the drummers and pipers and obsolete minstrels of her family; and her own buxom countenance at the tail of such a procession, gave it all the air of an antiquated pageant or mumming. She was mischievous under the appearance of frankness; generous and friendly without delicacy or sentiment.[486]

Lord Northumberland’s son, Lord Warkworth, was married to the third daughter of the Favourite;[487] on which foundation the father was admitted to the private junto, which now met daily at Mr. Stone’s.[488] It was composed of Lord Bute, Lord Northumberland, Lord Mansfield, Norton, Stone, and the brother of the latter, the famous Primate of Ireland, who bad followed the Lord-Lieutenant to London; coming, as he outwardly professed, to promote harmony and reconciliation. As he died soon after, before he had given any specimens of his arts here, I pretend not to say what were the real motives of his journey. He did visit Mr. Pitt; but a man so notorious for cunning as the Primate, was not likely to win on the _caution_ of Mr. Pitt, who never _was explicit_, and least of all to men of abilities. It appeared, however, from the meetings I have mentioned, and other symptoms, that the Favourite was peeping out of his lurking-hole, and was disposed to let his power be felt. Grenville, though drunk with vanity, was sober enough to be stung with any competition; and yet his obstinacy disgusted those whom it was most necessary for him to attach. He offended the Duke of Bedford and Lord Halifax by refusing to let the Treasury bear the whole charge of the fines imposed on the messengers. The Duke experienced so many slights, that he kept retired in the country, and Rigby went to France, professing that it was to be absent, lest he should be blamed if the Duke should submit to such ignominious treatment; but Rigby had, no doubt, secured the Duke’s submission before he ventured to leave him, as he called it, to himself. However, the Duke of Cumberland was so much misled by those wayward humours, that before the end of the summer he sent Lord Albemarle[489] to Woburn, to sound their dispositions, and endeavour to draw them from the Court. Not one, not his own sister, Lady Tavistock, would talk to him on politics; only the Duchess said drily, that her husband was Minister, and that everything was done that he desired. Mr. Pitt had said more truly, some time before, “They will disgust the Duke of Bedford in the spring, that they may not be teazed with his solicitations; and they will sweeten him again by winter, with some trifling favour, that he may give them no trouble in Parliament.”

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON:
Printed by S. & J. BENTLEY, WILSON, and FLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Preface to the “Memoires of the Last Twelve Years of the Reign of George the Second,” p. xxvi.

[2] Postscript to the “Memoires of George the Second,” p. 40.

[3] Preface to the “Memoires of the Last Twelve Years of the Reign of George the Second,” p. xxxii.

[4] Mr. Wright’s notes on Lord Chatham’s Correspondence and his edition of Cavendish’s Debates are also most useful aids to the student of English History. He died not many months ago, in circumstances which proved his labours to have been very inadequately rewarded by the public.

[5] Mr. Clavering--he was a near relative of a North country baronet of the same name.--E.

[6] Sir Henry Wilmot, Bart., M.D., Physician-general to the Forces, an eminent medical practitioner, and the son-in-law of Dr. Mead; he died in 1786, at a very advanced age.--E.

[7] He was Serjeant-surgeon to the King, and had attended George II. at the battle of Dettingen.--E.

[8] John Stuart, third Earl of Bute.--This nomination was severely criticised in publications of the day. It is treated by Mr. Adolphus as a simple nomination to the Privy Council, and is defended as such, on the ground that the Groom of the Stole had been always constituted a Privy Counsellor. This is a misconception. The empty honour of the Council could be grudged by no one to a great officer of the royal household. The real grievance was his admission into the Cabinet.--E.

[9] The Duke very soon discovered his power to be gone. Lord Bute’s predilection for the Tories was undisguised, and it soon became evident that the Court had determined to break up the Whig party, the effect of which would be to reduce the Duke to insignificance. See an interesting letter from Mr. Rigby to the Duke of Bedford (19 Dec. 1760), giving an account of an interview of the former with the Duke of Newcastle.--Russell Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 467.

[10] William Cavendish, fourth Duke of Devonshire, and Lord Chamberlain.

[11] William Henry Nassau Zulestein, fourth Earl of Rochford. He was descended from General Zulestein, a natural uncle of William the Third; and his grandfather, the first Earl, had been one of the favourite generals of that Monarch. Lord Rochford had been minister at Turin from 1749 to 1755, when he was appointed Groom of the Stole, to the great disappointment of Earl Poulett, the first Lord of the Bedchamber, who in consequence resigned his employment. Walpole’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 381.--E.

[12] The Duke of Bedford was no favourite of Walpole, owing to a private quarrel. There is no reason for suspecting that it could have been intended to remove his Grace from the Government of Ireland, a post which he had occupied with great reluctance (Walp. Mem. vol. ii. p. 105), and was glad to vacate shortly afterwards.--E.

[13] Granville Leveson, Earl Gower, brother of the Duchess of Bedford.

[14] James Brudenel, brother of the Earl of Cardigan, to which title he afterwards succeeded. He died without issue in 1811, aged 86.--E.

[15] Eldest daughter of John, Earl of Bute; afterwards married to Sir James Lowther.

[16] Afterwards third wife of Granville Leveson, Earl Gower.

[17] He had been dismissed for joining Mr. Pitt, and the Prince had at the time promised to restore him, upon coming to the throne.--Doddington’s Diary, Appendix.--E.

[18] Richard Temple, Lord Cobham, who had been much engaged with Frederick Prince of Wales, being asked by Henrietta, Lady Suffolk, what was the real character of the Princess, replied, “She was the only woman he could never find out: all he had discovered was, that she hated those most to whom she paid most court.”

[19] This criticism of Lord Bute is not borne out by facts. The fine collection of pictures made by his lordship at Luton, prove the munificence and discernment with which he patronized painting. Luton itself, the building, or rather the enlargement of which he is known to have personally superintended, with many faults had likewise many beauties, and was surpassed in taste by few of the mansions of that date, and certainly not by Strawberry Hill. He had, in fact, a genuine love both of painting and architecture, and his efforts to infuse the same into the mind of his royal pupil did not entirely fail, for George the Third’s example was unquestionably a great improvement in this respect on his immediate predecessors. Of the other charges here brought against Lord Bute, the Editor has spoken elsewhere.--E.

[20] Archbishop Secker has been in more than one instance misrepresented by Walpole. It is most improbable that he should have entertained the views here ascribed to him. As the head of the Church, it necessarily became his duty to attend frequently at Court on the commencement of a new reign, as has since happened to his successors without their incurring any such imputation.--E.

[21] When Prince of Wales, Scott, his sub-preceptor, reproached him with inattention to his studies. The Prince pleaded idleness. “Idle! Sir,” said Scott; “your brother Edward is idle; but do you call being asleep, being idle?”

[22] George Keppel, third Earl of Albemarle, a favourite of the Duke of Cumberland, and afterwards conqueror of the Havannah.

[23] George, eldest son of Charles Lord Viscount Townshend (afterwards Marquis of Townshend). His name often appears in these Memoirs.

[24] A Letter to the Honourable Brigadier General, Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty’s Forces in Canada.--London, 1760.--It is written with a point and spirit, and we may add, with a degree of malignity, closely akin to Junius, to whose pen, indeed, it has recently been ascribed. (See Preface by Mr. Simons to the new edition of this Pamphlet.) A reply, under the title of “Refutation of a Letter,” &c., composed, evidently, under the eye of Townshend or his family, appeared shortly afterwards, and is equally intemperate, but very inferior in ability. The controversy is so far prejudicial to Townshend, as convicting him of an ungenerous indifference to the memory of the great man who had led him to victory--his only excuse for the slight manner in which he notices Wolfe in the despatch being, not “want of esteem, but because of the impropriety of writing a panegyric to a Minister, when nothing but the situation and exigence of affairs is mentioned.” Townshend virtually admitted the justice of the charge, by subsequently publishing a studied panegyric on Wolfe in the form of a private letter, though it is more in the style of his brother’s parliamentary speeches, and was probably the composition of the latter. With respect to his opposition to Wolfe’s plan of attack, he stands entirely acquitted. The Protest made by him, in common with other officers, had been against a plan of attack which, in consequence of that Protest, was abandoned, and the dissentients on that occasion were those who proposed the very attack which proved so successful. The two generals were certainly not suited to each other. Townshend, though brave, clever, and not devoid of good feeling, was impatient of authority, and possessed in a singular degree the faculty of detecting and exaggerating the faults of his superiors. He had thus drawn upon himself the resentment of the Duke of Cumberland, to whom he was under great obligations, and had fallen into difficulties, out of which it required the all-powerful patronage of Pitt to extricate him. A partial friend (Mr. Glover) describes him as “often led into hasty and striking judgments of men either in approbation or censure.” Wolfe was not of a temperament to brook sarcasm, or even opposition, from a subordinate officer; and yet he had peculiarities which Townshend could scarcely overlook. One was a confidence in himself, which, as he took no pains to disguise it, led superficial observers to question the reality of his merit. Just before he quitted England for the last time, he called to take leave of Lord Temple, whom he found sitting with a colleague. The conversation turned on the prospects of the expedition; and some stress being laid on the resistance that might be expected from the numbers and gallantry of the French, Wolfe rose from his chair, and drawing his sword, exclaimed with a loud voice, and in a menacing attitude, that there was nothing to fear; for if he could only come within reach of the enemy, his success was not a matter of doubt, but of certainty. When he left the room the two Ministers looked at each other with astonishment, and agreed, that to entrust so hazardous an expedition to such a braggart, was indeed a fearful experiment. The feeling that at all times appeared uppermost in his mind, was an insatiable appetite for glory, and desire after posthumous fame. He idolized genius either in arts or arms. Even on the day of the attack, while sailing down the St. Lawrence, he read aloud Gray’s Elegy, and observed several times to the officers with him, that he did not know whether he would not rather be the author of that poem than the conqueror of Quebec. In truth his was a noble nature. His feelings were as genuine as they were ardent. He gave the most minute attention to the welfare and comfort of his troops; and instead of maintaining the reserve and stateliness so common with other commanders of that day, his manner was frank and open, and he had a personal knowledge of perhaps every officer in his army. We recollect a respectable veteran, who, after having served under him at Louisburgh and Cape Breton, commanded one of the first detachments that scaled the heights of Abraham. In that exploit Captain ---- was shot through the lungs. On recovering his senses he saw Wolfe standing by his side. Amidst the anxieties of such a critical hour, the General stopped to press the hand of the wounded man--praised his services, encouraged him not to abandon the hope of life--assured him of leave of absence and early promotion; nay more, he desired an aide-de-camp to give a message to that effect to General Monckton, should he himself fall in the action; and, to the credit of General Monckton, the promise was kept. No wonder that these qualities coupled with brilliant success won the hearts of the soldiery: a sort of romance still clings to his name. He is the only British General belonging to the reign of George the Second who can be said to have earned a lasting reputation. Long as this note is, it would be incomplete without some notice of General Townshend. That officer was the son of Charles third Viscount Townshend, and the witty Ethelreda Harrison, and therefore the grandson of Charles second Viscount Townshend, the celebrated colleague of Sir Robert Walpole. He was not loved by either of his parents. His father, a man of dissolute habits, and an unnatural parent, made for him so mean a provision, that on leaving the University he joined the army abroad as a volunteer, and he served in that capacity at the battle of Dettingen. He was afterwards reduced to seek employment in the Dutch service, but, fortunately, was disappointed, as about this time he attracted the notice of the Duke of Cumberland, through whose interest he rose rapidly to the rank of Colonel. He attended the Duke during the remainder of the war, and distinguished himself at Fontenoy and Culloden. Subsequently, his marriage with Lady de Ferrars, the heiress of the Northamptons, placed him at once in opulent circumstances, and he was elected a representative for Norfolk without opposition, except from his father. The figure he made in the House, where he acquired considerable influence, especially over members in the agricultural interest, has caused him to be often noticed (generally with censure) in these Memoirs; but though Walpole paints him in no pleasing colours, on the other hand, another contemporary writer says that he was manly in person, demeanour, and sentiment, and exemplary as a husband and father, and, from his wit, agreeable to his friends and formidable to those he disliked. It cannot be denied, however, that he was too prone to mischief, and more worldly than seemed consistent with his love of pleasure and ease. His life was singularly prosperous, and prolonged to extreme old age. He became Viscount Townshend by the death of his father in 1764. In 1767 he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; in 1787 he was created a Marquis, and in 1807, he died, aged 84, being then a Field Marshal, Governor of Jersey, and Colonel of a regiment of Dragoons. Memoirs of George the Second, vol. i. p. 33; vol. ii. p. 337. Memoirs of a distinguished Political and Literary Character, p. 71--E.

[25] Charles Lenox, third Duke of Richmond.

[26] William Keppel, third son of William Anne, second Earl of Albemarle, by Lady Anne Lenox, daughter of the first Duke of Richmond. He commanded a regiment at the conquest of the Havannah, and died a General officer, unmarried, in 1786.--E.

[27] There is a slight inaccuracy in this statement. The Duke’s resentment was not so generous. The object of his interview with the King was to promote his own interest, not that of Colonel Keppel.--See the Duke of Richmond’s letter of 21st June, 1783, in the Appendix to Dodington’s Diary.--E.

[28] William Petty, Lord Fitzmaurice, eldest son of the Earl of Shelburne, whom he succeeded in that title May 17, 1761; and by which title he will be frequently mentioned in the following Memoirs.

[29] Lord George Lenox was only brother of Charles third Duke of Richmond. He had behaved with distinguished gallantry in the German wars. The late Duke of Richmond was his son.--E.

[30] Charles Fitzroy, second son of Lord Augustus Fitzroy, second son of Charles second Duke of Grafton, and only brother of Augustus Henry third Duke of Grafton. He distinguished himself at the battle of Minden, where he served on the staff of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick. He was created Lord Southampton in 1780, and died on the 21st of March 1797, aged 60.--E.

[31] Augustus Henry, Duke of Grafton, afterwards First Lord of the Treasury.

[32] Henry Fox had married Lady Caroline Lenox, eldest daughter of Charles, late Duke of Richmond, without the consent of her father and mother, who were some years unreconciled to her.

[33] It was given under pretence of paying the late Prince her husband’s debts. Whether she did discharge any of them I neither know nor deny; some, I have heard, remained unpaid, not only at her death, but in the year 1788.

[34] George Henry Lee, Earl of Litchfield, High Steward, and afterwards Chancellor of the University of Oxford, had been a zealous partisan of the House of Stuart, of which he was an illegitimate branch, his grandfather, Edward the first Earl, having married a daughter of Charles the Second by the Duchess of Cleveland. Lord Litchfield was too much a man of pleasure to shine in politics, or he might at this crisis have taken a leading part in public affairs, for his abilities were considerable. The following ironical character of him is almost the only instance in which Wilkes has described an opponent with candour and truth:--“The Captain (Giddy) was a sprightly fellow in his youth, and is remembered about twenty years ago to have made a very good speech or two at some of your public meetings in London. From this time, however, the figure he hath made in the world hath not been much to his credit. The chief of his company, till within these two years, have been parsons and country squires. They used to lead him about to races, cock-matches, and country clubs, where he was apt sometimes to drink a little too freely. A course of life of this sort brought on a swimming in his head, so that he hath frequently been supposed not to be sensible where he was, or what he was about: hence he hath been known in the late times of party violence, in the same sort of company, and within a few days of each other, to drink ‘Exclusion to the House of Hanover, and confusion to the Stuarts.’” _North Briton, No. 29_.--Lord Litchfield died in 1772. The title did not go beyond the third generation, though the first Earl had thirteen sons, of whom six lived to manhood.--E.

[35] Edward Harley, Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, was grandson of the Lord Treasurer’s brother, on whom the title had been specially limited, on failure of issue male in the direct line. He died in 1790, aged 64.--E.

[36] Thomas Brudenel Bruce, Baron Bruce, youngest brother of George, Earl of Cardigan, and of the Duke of Montague. He was the fourth son of George third Earl of Cardigan, by Elizabeth, only daughter of Thomas second Earl of Aylesbury and Baron Bruce. That barony afterwards devolved upon him by a special limitation in the patent obtained by his uncle Charles, the third and last Earl of Aylesbury, who also bequeathed to him the bulk of the family property. He was created Earl of Aylesbury in 1776, on the death of his uncle, and died in 1814. The present Marquis of Aylesbury is his son.--E.

[37] James Douglas, Earl of March and Ruglen, afterwards Duke of Queensberry. He died in 1810, aged 86. He possessed uncommon shrewdness and penetration, but is now only remembered by the excessive profligacy which stained even the last years of his life.--E.

[38] Alexander Montgomery, Earl of Eglinton, an intelligent, public-spirited nobleman. Scotland is greatly indebted to him for the agricultural improvements he introduced upon his estates in Ayrshire, and still more for the benefit of his example on other large landed proprietors. He was mortally wounded in an accidental scuffle with an officer of Excise, whom he found poaching in his park, and died on the 25th October, 1769. The murderer was convicted, and only escaped execution by hanging himself in prison. Wood’s Peerage of Scotland, vol. i.--E.

[39] George Broderick, Viscount Middleton. He had married the eldest daughter of the Honourable Thomas Townshend, and great-niece of the Duke of Newcastle, and died in 1765, aged 35. He was the grandson of Lord Chancellor Broderick.--E.

[40] Andrew Stone, of whom see more in the preceding reign, and _infra_.

[41] Smith de Burgh, Earl of Clanrickard.

[42] Richard Rigby, of Mistley, near Manningtree, in Essex, Secretary to the Duke of Bedford.

[43] This tract may still be read with interest. It is a masterly production. The style is clear and persuasive, the tone calm, and the reasoning close and logical. The examples from English history with which the author supports his positions are skilfully chosen and agreeably introduced, and his strictures on the King of Prussia have a smartness and pungency that show no small command over the weapons of controversy. Mr. Mauduit was agent for Massachusetts. He wrote several tracts on the differences between England and her American Colonies, as well as on subjects connected with the Dissenting interests, of which he was a zealous and munificent promoter. He died unmarried, in June 1787, aged 72. See Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes, vol. viii. p. 466; and Chalmers’s Biographical Dictionary, Art. Mauduit.--E.

[44] Basil Fielding, Earl of Denbigh, Lord of the Bedchamber.

[45] Son of Mr. Grenville, of Wooton, and afterwards First Lord of the Treasury. He had for some time been looked upon as a very promising statesman. Mr. Glover, in writing of him a few years before, says, “George Grenville will, I believe, make the most useful and able Parliament man of the three, though not of equal eloquence with Pitt.”--Mem. of a Distinguished Pol. and Lit. Character, p. 20.

His memory is embalmed in the brilliant panegyric of Mr. Burke (speech on American Taxation); and a more sober, though not less friendly estimate of his merits, has been since given by Mr. Knox. (Cited in an interesting note to the Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 486.) These prove how highly he was esteemed by his friends; and it will be perceived in the course of this work that Walpole was not always blind to his great knowledge of the Constitution, his capacity for business, and his powers as a speaker in Parliament. The unfavourable opinion, however, expressed of Mr. Grenville in the text was by no means confined to Walpole, his unpopularity being remarkable. Justice, indeed, was never shown to his abilities by the public--even Dr. Johnson wrote of him, “Let him not be depreciated in his grave. He had powers not universally possessed; could he have enforced payment of the Manilla ransom, _he could have counted it_.” (Cited in Boswell, vol. ii. p. 113.)--E.

[46] Archibald Campbell, Duke of Argyle, died suddenly, March 15, 1761.

[47] The King.

[48] Sir Henry Erskine, though a moderate poet, was not meanly accomplished. He cultivated literature, and was a very lively companion. He spoke frequently in the House of Commons, and always fluently and with spirit, but in a style better suited to the hustings than to a deliberative assembly. His career was singular. He was the second son of Sir John Erskine, Bart., of Alva, and succeeded to his title on the death of his brother, Major Sir Charles Erskine, at Holst, just before the battle of Lafeldt. He accompanied the expedition to L’Orient, as Deputy Quarter-Master General of the Forces, under his uncle, General St. Clair. Devoting himself afterwards to politics, he shared the proscription which fell on the adherents of Leicester House, and was dismissed the service. The new reign amply restored his fortunes. With his commission he soon received the command of the Royal Scots; and in four years he had already attained the rank of Lieutenant-General, when he died, in 1765, in middle life. His marriage with Miss Wedderburn, little as it promised at the time of worldly advantage, brought wealth and rank into his family; the earldom and property of her brother, Lord Chancellor Rosslyn, having devolved subsequently on their eldest son, owing to the death of that nobleman and his brother, General Wedderburn, without issue.--E.

[49] John Home, author of the tragedies of Douglas, Agis, and Siege of Aquileia; of which none save Douglas (says Sir Walter Scott) were exhibited with remarkable applause, and one or two with marked disapprobation. Mr. Home, though not a first-rate dramatist, was a pleasing writer, well-informed, and very agreeable in society. George the Third became much attached to him, and provided for him on coming to the throne. He died in 1808, aged 84. His memoirs have been elegantly written by Mackenzie, and form the subject of one of Walter Scott’s beautiful criticisms in the Quarterly Review for June 1827.--E.

[50] Thomas Worseley, Surveyor General of the Board of Works.

[51] George Cooke, prothonotary of the Common Pleas, and member for Middlesex. Walpole calls him elsewhere a “pompous Jacobite.” He conducted the celebrated Westminster Petition against Lord Trentham in 1751; afterwards attaching himself to Mr. Pitt, he was appointed joint Paymaster-General in 1766, and died in 1768.--E.

[52] Thomas Coventry, member for Bridport. A barrister, and director of the South Sea Company. He was son of Thomas Coventry, who was brother of William fifth Earl of Coventry.--E.

[53] Alderman William Beckford, of Jamaica, member for the City of London.