Chapter XX (2)

[67] This tract of Dr. Browne’s, entitled “Thoughts on Civil Liberty, Licentiousness, and Faction,” hardly deserves notice except from the success of the author’s other works, of which it has all the faults and none of the merits. Its failure was complete. The author committed suicide in the following year, being then only in his 51st year. His fame rests entirely on his tragedies, which are still favourites with the public; but his treatises display an ingenuity and extent of information, and occasionally a power of expression, at least equally commendable; and it is to be regretted that those qualities were so wasted on ephemeral publications, and directed by a mind always verging on insanity. A long and very dull life of Dr. Browne is to be found in the Biographia Britannica.--E.

[68] The Duchess had inherited the island from the Earls of Derby, from whom she was descended. [Her ancestor John, the first Marquis of Athol, having married Lady Amelia Stanley, daughter of James seventh Earl of Derby and his celebrated Countess. The Duchess was daughter and heiress of James, second Duke of Athol, and had married her cousin John, the third Duke, by whom she left a large family.--E.]

[69] Afterwards Sir Grey Cooper, Baronet, Secretary of the Treasury, and a Privy Councillor. He was generally a dull speaker, but had considerable abilities, and was much esteemed in his department. He died in 1801. His speech is reported in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 21.--E.

[70] Mr. Adolphus, in the new edition of his History, says, “The malady with which his Majesty was afflicted, exhibited symptoms similar to those which, in 1788, and during the last years of his life, gave so much unhappiness to the nation. I did not mention the fact in former editions of this work, because I knew that the King and all who loved him were desirous that it should not be brought into notice. So anxious were they on this point, that Smollet having intimated it in his complete History of England, the text was revised in the general impression--a very few copies in the original form were disposed of, and they are now rare.” Adolphus, vol. i. p. 175.--E.

[71] Afterwards Sir William Duncan, Bart., a Scot; he married Lady Mary Tufton, sister of the Earl of Thanet.

[72] Mr. Nicholson Calvert’s speech is given in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 42, where it is said that he was very inefficiently supported by Serjeant Hewet.--E.

[73] Bishop of Gloucester. Voltaire always calls him by mistake Bishop of Worcester.

[74] This sermon is noticed by Gray in a letter written at the time.--Works, vol. iv. p. 49. Warburton did not carry his imprudence so far as to print it. He had been a candidate for the see of London in 1761, and was not a little disappointed by the preference given to Bishop Hayter, to which he thus _modestly_ alludes in a letter to Hurd. “You and your poet say true, ‘I will bet at any time on a fool or a knave against the field.’ Though the master of the course be changed, yet the field is the same, where _the race is not to the swift_.” (Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate, &c., p. 328.) His hopes must have been rekindled by the early death of Bishop Hayter, only to be again dashed by the appointment of Bishop Osbaldiston; and his ambition received a deathblow by the elevation of Terrick. His contempt of his successful competitors appears to have been expressed in every way calculated to be most offensive to them: even at a dinner at Archbishop Secker’s, about this period, he taunted the Bench with leaving the defence of the Church against its various assailants to their chaplains, and not performing the task themselves, as Ridley and Jewel had done of old; and quoted, at the same time, the saying of Jewel: “Why are we distinguished from the rest of our brethren with superior titles and riches, but that we may out-do them in the service of the public, so that when men see our great achievements, they may say these men deserve their superior titles and riches who perform them thus nobly.” The prelates wisely indulged him in this freedom. He never rose beyond the see of Gloucester, which it may be remarked he owed not to his learning and theological reputation, but to Mr. Pitt’s regard for Allen. Perhaps Mr. Pitt was the only statesman who would have had the courage to place him on the Bench. Notwithstanding his friendship with Mr. Yorke, he was neglected by Lord Hardwicke, who, he says, “amidst all his acquaintance, chose the most barren and sapless, on which dry plants to shower down his most _refreshing rain_.”--Letters, p. 433. The violence of his temper, his overbearing disposition, and the vagueness of his political creed, gave Ministers some excuse, yet it shows an imperfection in the system of ecclesiastical patronage, that a man of his genius and attainments should have been so often set aside for the obscure and now long forgotten individuals whom Court or Ministerial favour continually placed in the higher offices of the Church. He resented this treatment to the last. It embittered a lot which ought to have been happy, for he had wealth, rank, reputation, and domestic prosperity; but his letters breathe an air of discontent unworthy of a great man. He died at an advanced age in 1776.--E.

[75] At the end of 1768. It was triumphantly answered by Burke.--E.

[76] Thomas Gilbert, Esq., M. P. for Newcastle-under-Line, and Controller of the King’s Wardrobe. See Walpole’s Letters, vol. v. p. 15.--E.

[77] The bill proposed to divide every county into large districts, comprising a whole hundred, or at least a great number of parishes, in order to remedy the evils caused by the distresses of the poor, and the misapplication of the money raised for their relief. It has the merit of being one of the earliest efforts made in Parliament for the amendment of the Poor-laws. In 1782 Mr. Gilbert succeeded in carrying a bill containing the main features by his plan for the incorporation of parishes, so well known as the Gilbert Act. An account of these and other bills, prepared by Mr. Gilbert, of the same tendency, is given in Eden’s History of the Poor, vol. i. p. 362.--E.

[78] Humphry Sturt, Esq., M. P. for the county of Dorset, where the family has long enjoyed considerable wealth and parliamentary influence.--E.

[79] Query whether instead of John Pitt, it ought not to be George Pitt, Mr. Sturt’s colleague, and afterwards Lord Rivers, and Minister at Turin. He died in 1801.--E.

[80] This man became much more known about a dozen years after this period. [His character has not yet ceased to be a subject of controversy; and those who wish to know all that can be said for and against him, may consult Mr. Hunt’s recent biographical work, and Mr. Keppel’s Life of Lord Keppel. His generous and constant patronage of Captain Cook has given more interest to his memory than belongs to his political squabbles. The King’s favour, Lord Sandwich’s friendship, and lastly his own merit, raised him among other distinctions to the honourable post of Governor of Greenwich Hospital. He was made a Baronet in 1773, and died unmarried in 1796.--E.]

[81] By the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham.

[82] Grenville was of Buckinghamshire.

[83] This must be confined to the following period of fluctuations in the Administration. When it became resettled under Lord North, _who was a Tory_, the Court’s system of prerogative predominated entirely.

[84] The præmunire clauses of the Regency Act (24 George II. c. 24) are in the 4th and 22nd sections. By the 4th section these penalties attach on any person having the custody of the King’s appointment of the Council of Regency, that ventures to open the same without his Majesty’s order, or to neglect or refuse to deliver up the same after his Majesty’s death. The 22nd section is more important, and as it contains the clause to which the text applies, and was the subject of much discussion in the House of Commons, where it met with warm opposition, even from the Speaker, Mr. Onslow, the following transcript of it may not be without interest: “All commissions, letters patent, orders, matters, and things to be made, passed, had, or done by the said Regent, either with or without the consent of the said Council of Regency, _in order_ unlawfully to set aside, change, or vary the order and method of Government, and administration of Government settled by this Act during such minorities as aforesaid, shall be absolutely null and void; and every person _advising, concurring, promoting, or assisting therein_ shall incur the penalties of a præmunire.” An animated report of the debates on this clause is given by Walpole, Mem. Geo. II. vol. i. p. 191.--E.

[85] This is no doubt the truth.--E.

[86] With his brother Henry Pelham, and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.

[87] Charles Fitzroy, second Duke of Grafton, Lord Chamberlain, and K.G., grandson to Charles the Second, whom he appears to have resembled in some of the better parts of that monarch’s character.--See the account of him in Walpole’s Geo. II. vol. i. p. 157. He died May 6, 1757, aged 78.--E.

[88] Lionel Sackville, first Duke of Dorset, K.G., son of the celebrated Earl. He had gone through most of the great posts, having been successively Lord Steward, Lord President, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, besides being employed on several foreign missions. Walpole describes him (Mem. Geo. II. vol. i. p. 244) as a man of dignity, caution, and plausibility, who, when left to himself, as in his first Lord-Lieutenantcy, had ruled Ireland to the universal satisfaction of that people. He was less successful when his son Lord George Germaine and Primate Stone were his advisers. He died on the 10th of October, 1763, aged 75. See more of him in Wraxall’s Hist. Mem. vol. ii. p. 415, and in Collins’s Peerage.--E.

[89] Such a post would certainly not have suited the modest, scrupulous, and pious author of the “Analogy,” and as his character was well known, it is very unlikely to have been destined for him,--though he was highly esteemed at Court. Had his friend Dr. Clarke filled the Archbishopric of Canterbury, which Queen Caroline is said to have so much desired, he would probably have been preferred, and with his parts and decision of character, might have become a very considerable man.--E.

[90] The King had then four brothers living: Edward Duke of York, and the Princes William, Henry, and Frederick.

[91] William Duke of Cumberland.

[92] John third Earl of Waldegrave, brother-in-law of the Duchess of Bedford.

[93] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 52.--E.

[94] The Address of both Houses.

[95] Edward Duke of York, the Princes William, Henry, and Frederick, and William Duke of Cumberland, son of George the Second.

[96] Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, a young lord attached to Mr. Grenville, [afterwards Secretary of State. (See more of him _infra_.)--E.]

[97] Lord Northington.

[98] Sir Philip Yorke, then Lord Chancellor. His son, Lord Hardwicke, kept away from this bill; Charles Yorke, the second brother, voted for it.

[99] He might have been asked why it was more proper to establish the Council for seventeen years, than the same Regent.

[100] Alluding to Lord Chatham and Alderman Beckford.

[101] Augustus Henry Fitzroy, third Duke of Grafton.

[102] Charles Lennox, third Duke of Richmond.

[103] Mary, fourth daughter of King George II.

[104] Charles Prince of Brunswick, husband of Princess Augusta, the King’s eldest sister.

[105] Frederick King of Prussia, son and grandson of the daughter and sister of King George the First.

[106] Attached to the Princess Dowager.

[107] Lord Bute told him he was in the right, and that a matter of such importance ought to be left under no _dubiety_.

[108] See Letter from Walpole to Lord Hertford, of 5th May, 1765, in Correspondence, vol. v. p. 23.--E.

[109] I must observe that Lord Holland has since maintained to me, that Lord Halifax alone had gone to the King, which I could never hear but from him: the contrary was the universal belief at the time, and what I learned in the House of Lords, where I arrived within five minutes after the scene I am describing had passed. It is at least evident by the ready concurrence of the Ministers, and by Grenville’s subsequent conduct in the House of Commons, that the measure had been concerted with him and Sandwich; and they both in their speeches afterwards gave indications that it had been so.

[110] Memoirs of George II., vol. i. p. 166.

[111] Charles Fitzroy, afterwards Lord Southampton, younger son of Lord Augustus Fitzroy, and only brother of Augustus Henry Duke of Grafton.

[112] See Walpole’s Letter to Lord Hertford, of May 12, 1765, in Correspondence, vol. v. p. 28.--E.

[113] Mr. Burrell, M. P. for Haslemere, made a Commissioner of Excise in 1774; became a Baronet on the death of his father-in-law, Sir Charles Raymond, and died in 1796. He was the father of Sir Charles Burrell, M. P.--E.

[114] Mr. Morton, Chief Justice of Chester, had been long in the intimate confidence of the Princess. He was in extensive practice, as may be seen in Burrow, and the other reports of the day--the leader on the Oxford Circuit, and Deputy High Steward of the University. He had considerable reputation as an advocate notwithstanding the sneer of a cotemporary satire, that says--

“Bewildered Morton spits and stares,
All petulance and froth.”

In the House of Commons, Mr. Morton seldom spoke except on questions connected with his profession. The following account of a singular scene in which he appears as the rash and unequal assailant of Pitt, has been preserved by Mr. Butler, the great Catholic counsellor, in his interesting and not uninstructive Reminiscences of George the Third.

On one occasion, Mr. Morton happened to say King, Lords, and Commons, or (directing his eye towards Mr. Pitt) as that right honourable Member would call them, Commons, Lords, and King.--The only fault of this sentence is its nonsense. Mr. Pitt arose, as he ever did, with great deliberation, and called to order. “I have,” he said “heard frequently in this House, doctrines which have surprised me, but now my blood runs cold. I desire the words of the honourable Member may be taken down.” The Clerks of the House took down the words. “Bring them to me,” said Mr. Pitt, with a voice of thunder. By this time Mr. Morton was frightened out of his senses. “Sir,” he said, addressing himself to the Speaker, “I am sorry to have given any offence to the right honourable Member, or to the House. I meant nothing--Kings, Lords, and Commons,--Lords, Commons, and King,--Commons, Lords, and King--_tria juncta in uno_. I meant nothing--indeed I meant nothing.” “I don’t wish to push the matter further,” said Mr. Pitt, in a voice a little above a whisper, then in a higher tone, “the moment a man acknowledges his error he ceases to be guilty. I have a great regard for the honourable Member, and as an instance of that regard, I give him this advice.” A pause of some moments ensued; then assuming a look of unspeakable decision, he said in a kind of colloquial tone, “Whenever that Member means nothing, I recommend him to say nothing.” (Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 156.) Mr. Morton’s last speech of any importance was on the Indemnity Bill for sending foreign troops to Minorca, in 1775. He never rose higher than the Chief Justiceship of Chester, though he was very near succeeding Mr. Justice Wilmot, in the King’s Bench; and the memoirs of the latter contain a very pleasing and well-written letter from him on the occasion. He had a house at Tackley, near Oxford, in the church of which place he is buried. He died on the 25th of July, 1780.--E.

[115] Lord Temple, in a letter to Lady Chatham, of the 10th of May, (Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 308,) notices these speeches very slightingly, and says the whole debate was of the most superlative dulness. Edward Kynaston, of Hardwicke, in the county of Salop, the eldest surviving son of John Kynaston, of the same place, the claimant of the ancient Barony of Powys, was member for Montgomeryshire; he died without issue in 1772.--E.

[116] He said to Onslow, in private, “Whatever you say to me, is fair; but there is one man, Martin, whose words I will never forget or forgive.”

[117] This was so entirely the motive of his conduct, that he wrote to his brother, Lord Hertford, at Paris, that he had voted against the Princess from the fear of being taxed with selfish views.

[118] Mr. White, M. P. for East Retford, an old member, highly respected by the Whig party in the House of Commons.--E.

[119] She was divorced from him by act of Parliament, for his cruel usage, and then married John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham. She was natural daughter of King James the Second.

[120] William Henry Cavendish, third Duke. He had succeeded to the title on the death of his father in 1762, and was at this time only twenty-seven years of age.--E.

[121] The King’s youngest brother.

[122] The object of the promoters of the bill was to obtain a total prohibition of the importation of foreign silks. This was not the only instance of the Duke of Bedford’s knowledge of political economy. Horace Walpole says elsewhere, that “he spoke readily, and upon _trade_ well.”--E.

[123] Robert Henley, Earl of Northington.

[124] Annual Register for 1765, p. 42.--E.

[125] Gertrude Leveson, daughter of John Lord Gower, and second wife of John Russell, Duke of Bedford.

[126] Bedford House stands on the north side of Bloomsbury Square. It has low walls in front, and a garden backwards, with a fossé to the fields. [It was built from a design by Inigo Jones, and has shared the fate of other great mansions in the same quarter of London.--E.]

[127] Their son was married to one of Lord Bute’s daughters.

[128] A broken wine merchant, brother of Admiral Cotes.

[129] Lord Sandwich was the head of Mr. Wortley Montagu’s family.--E.

[130] Yet the same indiscreet step did the King take again in 1783, when he dismissed the Duke of Portland and Lord North, and what was called _the Coalition_, before he had made sure of another Administration; and he was for a few days in danger of being obliged to recal those he had just removed; Lord Temple, son of George Grenville, not daring to undertake the Administration after he had consented; and Mr. Pitt, son of Lord Chatham, being almost as timid, and fluctuating backwards and forwards for three or four days, before he at last determined to accept.

[131] In a letter to the Duke of Marlborough, of the 19th of May, the Duke of Bedford states, that he plainly charged the King on this occasion with having “very unfaithfully kept” the conditions on which he (the Duke) had accepted office, and urged on him the necessity of forming an efficient Administration. The only result was, that “I left him,” says the Duke, “as did all the rest, without being able to get an explicit answer.”--(Mem. of the House of Russell, vol. ii. p. 560.)--E.

[132] In setting no bounds to his hostilities, Lord Holland’s fear operated as much as his resentment. He said to me with great earnestness, “If Mr. Pitt should not be content with taking away my place, but should say, I will have a mark set on him!”

[133] This negotiation is not noticed in Lord Chatham’s published Correspondence.--E.

[134] George William Hervey, second Earl of Bristol.

[135] Admiral Augustus John Hervey, brother of the Earl of Bristol, on whose death he succeeded to the title. He was a gallant and able officer, and had distinguished himself at the Havannah; but he was not without some of the peculiarities of disposition that seemed to belong to his family, and his memory subsequently suffered from the trial of his widow, the Duchess of Kingston (the soi-disant Miss Chudleigh.) He died without issue in 1779.--E.

[136] George Grenville was brother of Lady Hester, Mr. Pitt’s wife, lately created Baroness.

[137] It has been said, that Lord Temple’s estate, by a flaw, was in his own power.

[138] James Stuart Mackenzie, only brother of Lord Bute.

[139] Mr. Mackenzie resigned immediately upon learning that his exclusion was an object with the Government and would accommodate the King. He was a very amiable man, and no objection was ever raised to him beyond his relationship to Lord Bute. Letter of Mr. Mackenzie, Mitchell MSS., note to vol. ii. p. 312, of Lord Chatham’s Correspondence.--E.

[140] Rigby swore a great oath that the King should not have power to appoint one of his own footmen.

[141] Yet Lord Holland could never obtain any indemnification, nor attain an earldom, though he often solicited it in the most earnest manner, and by every interest he could employ.

[142] Thomas Thynne, third Viscount Weymouth. His mother had been one of the daughters and co-heiresses of the famous John Earl Granville. He had married a sister of the Duke of Portland, and was at this time about thirty-one years old. He was a man of talents, and of very lively conversation; though it is said that to profit by the latter it was necessary to follow him to White’s, to drink deep of claret, and remain at table to a very late hour of the night, or rather of the morning. His dissipated habits, indeed, were notorious. Junius has alluded to them with bitterness, and indulged in a profane jest at his expense. (Letter xxiii.) His straitened circumstances made his nomination very unpopular in Ireland, and he never went over, (Mr. Croker’s note in Walpole’s Letters, vol. v. p. 42,) which, however, did not prevent, if we are to believe Junius, his obtaining an outfit of £3000. His subsequent career was very prosperous. See Wraxall’s Historical Memoirs.--E.

[143] George Montague, Duke of Manchester.

[144] John Campbell, Marquis of Lorn, eldest son of John Duke of Argyle.

[145] Mr. Thurlow’s nomination to this post has been denied. He had been only seven years at the bar, and was already rising rapidly in the estimation of the profession; within five years he became Solicitor-General.--E.

[146] He was Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire, where he had a great estate. He died in 1778.--E.

[147] The original MS. states the interview to have been on the 20th of June, obviously by a clerical error, for that date would make the narrative unintelligible. In a letter to Sir Horace Mann, of the 26th (Letters, i. p. 237), the day is correctly stated to be the 12th, which is confirmed by a letter of the Duke of Bedford to the Duke of Marlborough, of the 13th, giving the details of the interview.--(Wiffen’s Memoirs of the House of Russell, p. 70.)--I have ventured to correct the text accordingly.--E.

[148] If this narrative be true, Junius is not the libeller that the world has supposed, and the King was unquestionably treated by his Ministers in a manner to which a parallel is only to be found in the reign of Charles the First. George the Third, however, was not, as Lord Brougham justly observes, (Historical Sketches, &c., vol. iii. p. 144,) the monarch to submit to such treatment,--neither was Sandwich or Halifax likely to have sanctioned it. Indeed Walpole must be mistaken in making them parties to the transaction. In a letter written at the time, he intimates that the Duke of Bedford alone waited upon the King (i. 238); he takes no notice of any written paper, nor is there any trace of such a document among the archives at Woburn. The only authentic account of the interview is given in the letter of the Duke to his nephew the Duke of Marlborough, cited in the preceding note, the general tenor of which proves beyond dispute the writer to have been innocent of any design to insult the King, as well as ignorant that he had done so. His Grace says that he reminded the King of the terms on which the Ministers had consented to resume their functions, and asked whether the promise made to them on that occasion had been kept. He complained of the favour shown to the opponents of the Administration, and the very different treatment received by their friends, dwelling especially on the influence of Lord Bute; and, finally, he besought his Majesty “to permit his authority and his favour to go together, and if the last could not be given to his present Ministers to transfer to others that authority which must be useless in their hands unless so strengthened.” Strong words these, no doubt, and an offensive interpretation may have been put upon them by a youthful sovereign with the notions of prerogative inculcated by Lord Bute--a political opponent (like Burke) might not unfairly insinuate them to be “indecent.” They furnish also a colourable foundation for the statement in the text, which is not unlikely to have been derived partially from the King himself. On the other hand, a dispassionate observer must take into consideration the general truth of the Duke’s charges; the feelings of the Ministers at their dismissal on grounds which appeared to them utterly inadequate; and, above all, their sense of the public danger resulting from the unsatisfactory relations of the King with his government. The limits prescribed by the constitution to a remonstrance of this nature are very indistinct, and the Duke will be held to have outstepped them only by the opponent of the political opinions with which the House of Russell have been so long and so honourably identified.--E.

[149] The most plausible explanation of Lord Temple’s conduct on this occasion is, that he acted on grounds purely personal. It appears from Lady Hervey’s Letters--an excellent authority--that as far back as March his connection with Mr. Pitt had in a great measure ceased. His pride may have been gratified by the advances made to him by the leading members of the Government, as unquestionably it was deeply wounded by the proofs he had lately received of his diminished influence over the Opposition. The gratification of his vengeance cost him dear, for the Liberal party never forgave him, and the event showed how entirely his importance with the country had arisen from his relation to Mr. Pitt. The engagements into which he immediately after entered with Mr. Grenville, only served to obstruct his return to power, and, as will be seen hereafter, to involve him in embarrassments still more prejudicial to his reputation.--E.

[150] Lord Villiers was the intimate friend of the Duke of Grafton, whose attachment was to Mr. Pitt.

[151] Charles (not the famous one, but his first-cousin) was the only son of Colonel W. Townshend, third son of Charles Viscount Townshend, Secretary of State. This Charles Townshend was, for distinction, called _the Spanish Charles_, from having been secretary to Sir Benjamin Keene, Ambassador at Madrid, and was afterwards a Commissioner of the Treasury.

[152] John Earl of Ashburnham, the chief favourite of the Duke of Newcastle, whom he afterwards abandoned, being a very prudent and interested man.

[153] T. Walpole was attached to Mr. Pitt.

[154] It certainly was time that they should enter upon the business of their respective offices, for the country had now been more than seven weeks virtually without a government. The following chronological summary of the negotiations that passed daily at this period will bring them more distinctly before the reader.

18th May. The King announced to Mr. Grenville his intention of changing his Ministers.

19th. The Ministers acquaint the King that they would resign on the following Tuesday.

20th. The Duke of Cumberland applies to Mr. Pitt, at Hayes.

20th. The King, having failed to form a new government, recalls his Ministers.

12th June. The Duke of Bedford remonstrates with the King.

17th. The Duke of Cumberland conveys to Mr. Pitt, at Hayes, fresh overtures from the King.

19th. Mr. Pitt has an audience with the King.

21st. Lord Temple refuses to join Mr. Pitt.

22nd. Mr. Pitt waits on the King and declines office.

23rd. Mr. Pitt has another audience, with the same result.

30th. Meeting of the Opposition at Claremont, under the auspices of the Duke of Cumberland.

1st July. The Duke of Newcastle notifies to the Duke of Cumberland the result of the meeting.

8th. New Ministers sworn in.--E.

[155] William Dowdeswell, formerly a Tory.

[156] Thomas, eldest son of Thomas Townshend, Teller of the Exchequer, and member for the University of Cambridge, and second son of Charles Viscount Townshend, Secretary of State.

[157] Henry Arthur Herbert, Earl of Powis. He died in 1772.

[158] George third Lord Edgcumbe, an admiral.

[159] Richard Lumley Saunderson, Earl of Scarborough; he had married the sister of Sir George Saville.

[160] Thomas, afterwards Lord Pelham.

[161] Next brother to Daniel Earl of Winchelsea, father of the succeeding earl.

[162] Thomas Viscount Gage, attached to the Duke of Newcastle, whom he afterwards abandoned as Lord Ashburnham did, to keep their places.

[163] Sir Fletcher Norton.

[164] Little is now known of Mr. Dowdeswell, beyond the high estimation in which he was held by the Whig party. His epitaph is by no means the happiest of Burke’s compositions; but amidst the cloud of panegyric the rays of truth exhibit a character of genuine English mould which it is very agreeable to contemplate. In a private letter, Burke says, “There never was a soul so remote as his from fraud, duplicity, or fear, so perfectly free from any of that rapacious unevenness of temper which embitters friendship and perplexes business. Of all the men I ever knew, he was the best to act with in public and to live with in private, from the manly decision and firmness of his judgment, and the extreme mildness and pleasantness of his temper.” His speeches, imperfectly as they are reported, prove him to have been a man of plain, sound, vigorous understanding, and not without respectable powers of debate. Burke exalts his knowledge of the revenue. He certainly was one of the leading members of the House, previous to his appointment, and the distinction conferred upon him was generally approved, Charles Townshend being forward to claim the merit of having suggested it. See the interesting Memoirs of Mr. Dowdeswell, in Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, i. 575.--E.

[165] The opinion entertained of Lord Rockingham by many of the most eminent men of his time, is alone sufficient to prove him not to have been the feeble-minded and insignificant character described in the text. He had the disadvantage of coming early into the possession of a princely fortune. His youth was wasted in the pursuits too common with his rank, and the only official employment he had as yet filled was that of a Lord of the Bedchamber. From the time, however, that he applied himself seriously to politics, he gradually obtained an ascendancy over his associates such as was possessed by no cotemporary statesman,--even the opinions of Lord Chatham having less weight with the more reflecting and intelligent members of the Liberal party than those of Lord Rockingham. A singular instance of this ascendancy used to be related by the late Lord Spencer, who happened to witness it. At a meeting of the Whigs, in 1782, preparatory to Lord Rockingham’s last Administration, his Lordship read a list of the appointments which he proposed to submit to the King. As soon as he uttered the name of Mr. Sheridan as Under-Secretary of State, the latter, then a young man, justly conscious of great abilities, and expecting a much higher post, exclaimed, in an indignant tone, “I will not accept!” Lord Rockingham fixing his eye on him, calmly but emphatically exclaimed, “You shall.” Sheridan seemed perfectly daunted, bowed his head, and made no further remonstrance. It was very rare, said Lord Spencer, that Lord Rockingham’s decisions did not meet the immediate acquiescence of the party. Nor was this purchased by the arts that exhausted the revenues and lowered the character of the Duke of Newcastle. Lord Rockingham stood clear of any charge of parliamentary corruption. His mode of living, though noble as suited his rank, was simple and unostentatious, and the disinterestedness of his political supporters may be inferred from the honourable boast of one of the most needy of them, that they had derived no permanent provision from his acceptance of office.[A] The same friendly pen has recorded, in the noble monumental inscription at Wentworth, “that his virtues were his arts,” and no doubt he was a virtuous, high-minded, amiable man; but he owed his success mainly to “a clear, sound, unadulterated sense,” which showed itself in great discretion, sagacity, and tact. His views were generally correct, and his firmness and perseverance never yielded in the most adverse and discouraging crisis, as was strongly evinced in the great American contest; and thus without eloquence, or any large share of the qualifications which usually confer eminence on popular leaders, he retained his political supremacy to the close of his life.--E.

[A] “A Short History of a Late Short Administration.”

[166] Lady Elizabeth Finch, youngest sister of Daniel Earl of Winchelsea, and of the Marchioness-dowager of Rockingham.

[167] Lord Northington.

[168] George Lord Townshend.

[169] “The vacillation of this eminent person was so decided as materially to lessen his influence and general consideration.” (See Charles Townshend’s singular Letter to Mr. Dowdeswell. Cavendish’s Debates, i. p. 576.) It eventually drew him to that fatal step which ruined his peace of mind and hurried him to the grave.--E.

[170] John Yorke. He died in 1769.--E.

[171] The Marchioness of Grey, wife of Philip Yorke, second Earl of Hardwicke, was the eldest daughter of the Earl of Breadalbane by his first wife, eldest daughter and co-heiress of the last Duke of Kent.

[172] Mr. Pitt’s reply, however, was cold and ungracious, and the Ministers must have been men of a very sanguine temperament to derive any comfort from it. His repudiation of the charge is clogged by such a distinct avowal of want of confidence in the Government, as must have defeated the object for which the letter was most wanted. It could hardly have been shown, except to friends.--Chatham Correspondence, ii. 319. It does more credit to the Duke than to Mr. Pitt.--E.

[173] Henry Lord Digby, an Irish baron, nephew of Lord Holland.

[174] The fact was this: Grenville, afraid of publishing his rapaciousness before he was sure of success, had forborne to mention the business to his brethren, the Commissioners of the Treasury, and even to inquire if the reversion was not already granted; but, going directly to the King, asked for the reversion. The King was very loth to bestow it on him; and, on being much pressed, said, “Mr. Grenville, I thought you were a severe enemy to all reversions!” Instead of being abashed, he had the confidence to reply: “Sir, if your Majesty will grant me this, I will take care you shall never give away another.” The King yielded. When Grenville notified the boon at the Treasury, he learned, to his inexpressible mortification, that the reversion was already engaged. Yet in the year 1770 he had the front, in Parliament, to censure a lucrative grant for life to Dyson!

[175] John Duke of Argyle, father of the Marquis, of Lord Lorn, of Lord Frederick Campbell, and of the Countess of Ailesbury, wife of Mr. Conway.

[176] Groom of the Bedchamber to the Duke, and conqueror of Belleisle. [He had been aide-de-camp to the second Earl of Albemarle at Dettingen and Fontenoy, and all the principal actions in Flanders. He was subsequently transferred to the family of the Duke, whom he attended at Culloden.--(Life of Lord Keppel, i. 298.) Several of his letters during the expedition to Belleisle are published in Mr. Keppel’s work. They are very well written, and their frankness, vivacity, and good feeling, make it a subject of regret that more is not known of the writer. He died a field marshal.--E.]

[177] A severe character of the Duke is given in the Memoirs of George the Second, vol. i. p. 85; nor has his memory found more favour from posterity. A love of truth, a dutiful consideration for his parents, and a decided preference of active employment, either civil or military, to the intrigues or frivolities of a Court, honourably distinguished him from his elder brother. In other respects he was not much to be esteemed.--E.

[178] He was enormously fat, had lost one eye and saw but ill with the other, was asthmatic, and had had a stroke of the palsy, besides the wound in his leg, that had not healed.

[179] George Keppel, third Earl of Albemarle, Lord of the Bedchamber to the Duke, and his favourite. The promise was not only renewed, but fulfilled at the end of the year, when the vacant garters were given to the Prince of Wales, the Hereditary Prince, and Lord Albemarle. [The latter was also entrusted by the King with the examination of the Duke’s papers and the administration of his property.--(Keppel’s Life, vol. iv. p. 384.)--E.]

[180] A statue of the Duke was erected afterwards in Cavendish Square by General Strode, at his own expense.

[181] Robert Adam, projector of the Adelphi Buildings and other known works. [An interesting life of him is given in the Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.--E.]

[182] This statue was not finished and set up till 1772. A bitter inscription was affixed to it in the night, supposed to be written by Wilkes.

[183] Sir John Lambert was of a Huguenot family. He was born in 1728; he died in 1799.--E.

[184] The concession was made too late to be of much benefit to the original holders of the bills. It had been confidentially intimated to the friends of the late Government, before the latter left office, that the point would not be pressed on the French Court, and the bills, in consequence, were sold at a very great depreciation. Sir George Colebrooke, who was one of the sufferers, mentions the circumstance in his MS. memoirs.--E.

[185] When the Duc de Nivernois came to England to conclude the Peace, he would never take his remittances in bank bills, lest they should be traced. My cousin, Thomas Walpole, told me that he had paid to that Duke four thousand guineas in specie at a time. I do not charge the Ministers with the guilt of this corruption. They were paid by Lord Bute in places, honours, and power; but that French money had a share in that infamous transaction I do not doubt. The Duc de Nivernois, a man of economy, spent above thirty thousand pounds here in half a year. He kept a table for the tradesmen of London, that they might harangue for the Peace.

[186] What the French thought of our glorious successes and of our shameful Peace, appeared from what the famous Madame Geoffrin said to me one day at Paris,--“Vous avez eu un beau moment, mais il est bien passé!”

[187] His long and able services deserved a less tardy reward. He had been minister at Berlin from 1753, and was a constant companion of Frederick the Great during the Seven years’ war. Few understood that monarch better, and few, it is supposed, were loved by him so well. He died at an advanced age in 1771. His correspondence during his embassy, extending to 68 folio volumes, is preserved in the British Museum, and furnishes many valuable illustrations of cotemporary history--especially the letters addressed to him by his correspondents in England. It proves, also, his sagacity in perceiving that the minister of a representative Government requires an intimate knowledge of the state of affairs at home, in order to discharge his duties abroad most to the advantage of his country.--E.

[188] Reported under the name of Entick v. Carrington and others, 2 Wilson, 275. The outlawry against Wilkes being unreversed, he could not sue.--E.

[189] An account of Terrick has been given in a former page.--E.

[190] A better reason for dissolving the Parliament was furnished by the great measures in the contemplation of the new Government. No doubt the character of the House fell in the public estimation by the readiness with which the same individuals concurred in the repeal of Acts passed after due deliberation only in the preceding year. It is true that circumstances had altered in the interval, but the only alteration which the country regarded as influential upon the Parliament, was that which had taken place in the Government. Some politicians of later date have however pronounced it a blunder in any Minister to dissolve Parliament until it has rejected a Government measure.--E.

[191] The following are the words of his amendment:--

“To express our just resentment and indignation at the outrageous tumults and insurrections which have been excited and carried on in North America, and at the resistance given by open and rebellious force to the execution of the laws in that part of his Majesty’s dominions.”--E.

[192] “He asserted with vehemence his approbation of the Stamp Act, and was for enforcing it: he leant much to Mr. George Grenville’s opinion, soothed him, and sat down determined to vote against his amendment! Mr. Elliot the same; thereby insuring a double protection.”--Mr. Cooke to Mr. Pitt. Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 351.--E.

[193] Lord Shelburne appears to have spoken rather against the amendment than for the Ministers. He regarded the language applied to the Americans by the Opposition both in their speeches and the amendment as dangerous, and perhaps imprudent and unjust, and he deprecated a motion which seemed to preclude a repeal before it was considered thoroughly how far it might be necessary. His speech met with Mr. Pitt’s entire approbation.--(Lord Shelburne’s Letter to Mr. Pitt, and the reply in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 353.)--E.

[194] Lord Shelburne had attached himself to Mr. Pitt, and would not enter the Government without him.--(Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 357.)--E.

[195] He was affectionate to his daughters, but surely not to the Dauphin, whose life he made unhappy by excluding him from active employment, and whose death he bore with feelings of very slight regret.--E.

[196] He even stood at a window to see her coffin carried out of the palace.

[197] If the French were thus ignorant of the real character of the Dauphin, the ignorance has been of long continuance. All the French historians regard him as a fanatic. According to Sismondi (Histoire des Français, vol. xxix. p. 328) the Archbishop of Paris and the Molinist clergy formed around him a cabal which at first inspired alarm, next disdain, and at last pity. The story of his scepticism came, probably, to Walpole from the Duc de Choiseul, who had always been on the worst terms with him; nor is the Duc de Nivernois, the partizan of Choiseul, a courtier of pursuits and feelings utterly dissimilar to those of the prince, a much better authority. The only vice which the irreproachable conduct of the Dauphin admitted of being imputed to him, was hypocrisy. Whether he had sufficient energy of character to have averted the destruction which afterwards overwhelmed his unfortunate son, is more doubtful. He was personally brave, and is said to have shown spirit and readiness at Fontenoy, and it was with difficulty that the jealousy of the Duc de Choiseul could prevent his serving in the seven years’ war; but the qualities requisite for the successor of Louis the Fifteenth, were hardly compatible with his gentle, yielding, and amiable disposition. He died on the 20th of December, 1765, in his thirty-seventh year.--E.

[198] The Dauphin certainly preserved a tender attachment for the memory of his first wife, the Infanta Maria Therese. She died in child-bed in July, 1746. This did not, however, prevent his appreciating the merit of the second Dauphiness. Observing him in tears just before their marriage, she bade him indulge his grief, for it assured her of what she too might expect from his regard if she had the happiness to deserve it. She was by no means popular in the coteries frequented by Walpole, but by the nation at large she was held in high estimation. Her death was ascribed to a disorder she had contracted in nursing her husband. The Duchesse de Lauragais might have treated the expressions of a person in the agonies of death with more indulgence. Judging from this speech, she must have been as heartless as her lover the Maréchal de Richelieu, than whom, allowing for the difference of sex, she was not much more respectable.--E.

[199] The Duchesse was a niece of the financier Croisat, and brought to the Duc the great fortune of four millions of livres. After her husband’s death she retired into a convent, and submitted to severe privations in order to obtain the means of paying not only his debts, but even his legacies, for he had the assurance to make large testamentary bequests, though he must have known himself to be worse than insolvent. She was the Duc’s second wife. His first, also a considerable heiress, died within a year of their marriage, and he generously restored her fortune to her relations, though he was at that time poor.--E.

[200] His mal-administration of Brittany was an appropriate prelude to his career as President of the Council. In both offices he incurred almost universal hatred and contempt. It was at the Court alone that he shone. There his brilliant success was undeniable; and indeed it is not to be wondered at, for he was eminently adroit and specious; and, with a noble deportment, he possessed the art of expressing himself nobly. The English officers taken at St. Cas returned home fascinated by his urbanity and generous sayings. Though an undisguised profligate, he was the acknowledged leader of the religious party to which the Dauphin belonged, and the confidant of that exemplary Prince; and this did not prevent his subsequently becoming the minister of Louis the Fifteenth. The Duc was the great-nephew of Cardinal de Richelieu, and had inherited Aiguillon from the Cardinal’s favourite niece, Madame de Combalet. He died in 1783, leaving an only son.--E.

[201] The persecution to which M. de Chalotais was subjected has been detailed in a work extending to three volumes quarto, entitled “Procès Extraordinaire contre MM. Caradeuc de la Chalotais,” &c., with this singular motto: “Ad perpetuam sceleris memoriam.” He appears to have narrowly escaped with his life. The most important witness against him was a young Maître de Requêtes, M. de Calonne, twenty years later unhappily celebrated as the minister of Louis the Sixteenth. The trial gives a frightful picture of the state of criminal justice in France in those days. M. de Chalotais had pure motives, and was an able man; but his indiscretion, the irascibility of his temper, and the bitterness with which he treated all who differed from him in opinion, no doubt greatly aggravated his difficulties. His first work, “Compte rendu des Constitutions des Jesuites,” appeared in 1762, he being then sixty-one years of age: from that time until his death, in 1785, he maintained a hot and incessant warfare against the Court and religious parties, who regarded him as the representative of principles fraught with ruin to them both. This struggle no doubt materially hastened the Revolution. An interesting account of the proceedings against Chalotais is given in Anquetil (Hist. de France, vol. viii. p. 106–116), one of the best parts of a book of slender merit, and also in Sismondi (Hist. des Français, vol. xxix. p. 321), and in the able article on Chalotais in the Biographie Universelle.--E.

[202] It would be difficult to find, in the various histories of the period, a more ably drawn character of the Duc de Choiseul than this. The Duc was born in 1719. His administration lasted from 1757 to 1770, and he died in 1785.--E.

[203] It should be recollected that D’Alembert’s intimacy with Mademoiselle Espinasse had caused him to quarrel with Walpole’s old friend, Madame du Deffand. He wrote much that has long ceased to be read; but his Introduction to the Encyclopédie is a very able work, and as a mathematician he was one of the most eminent of his day. He died in 1783, aged sixty-six.--E.

[204] Nor could they be respected as judges are in England, as solicitation is practised in France in all causes. Where there is solicitation, there must be partiality. Where partiality is, there must be injustice; and injustice will never be popular.

[205] In his youth he had served with some distinction in Italy, where, in conjunction with the Infant Don Philip, he commanded the allied army of France and Spain. He possessed the personal courage, the cleverness, the turn for political intrigue, and the wrong-headedness which seemed hereditary in his family. The part he took in the affairs of the Parliament gained him the sobriquet, from the King, of “Mon Cousin l’Avocat.” He died in 1776, aged fifty-nine.--E.

[206] A dissolute courtier of illustrious family, who had the poor merit of being sincerely attached to an unworthy master. Unhappily for his country he was trusted with high commands, even after the battle of Rosbach, where he had shared all the dishonour of that signal defeat. The assistance of Marshal d’Estrèes enabled him for once to be successful at Johannisburgh. He died in 1787, aged seventy-two. The ex-Jesuit, Georgel, who was attached to the family, has painted him in flattering colours. See Mémoires de Georgel, vol. i. p. 278.--E.

[207] The Maréchal d’Estrèes, Louis César le Tellier, grandson of the celebrated Louvois. He was at this time seventy years old, and probably exhausted by long service. He had greatly distinguished himself at Fontenoy; but his chief exploit was the victory he gained at Hastenbeck, over the Duke of Cumberland. This did not prevent his being harshly treated by the Court, and through the intrigues of the Maréchal de Richelieu he was for a time deprived of his rank and employment, and imprisoned in the Castle of Doulens on an unfounded charge of having left his victory incomplete. He was afterwards recalled and employed, but his last campaign against Prince Ferdinand was not a successful one. He died in 1771, aged seventy-six.--E.

[208] See vol. i. p. 138, supra.

[209] See vol. i. p. 139, supra.

[210] He had defeated Prince Ferdinand at Clostercamp, in the battle which made the name of the Chevalier d’Assas so illustrious in the French annals. In the reign of Louis the Sixteenth he became Minister of Marine and was much respected. He died in 1801, aged seventy-four.--E.

[211] The Duc had none of the brilliancy of his cousin. His manners were cold and reserved, which his enemies ascribed to pride, and his friends to modesty. He never was popular. As Minister of Marine he appears to have discharged his duties efficiently, and the French fleet under his administration recovered the losses it had suffered in the war. His splendid seat near Melun, still in the possession of his descendants, and formerly the delight of the Intendant Fouquet, shows that his public services were not unrewarded. He died in 1795, aged seventy-three.--E.

[212] Madame de Staël paints him to the life: “C’étoit un homme d’esprit dans l’acceptation commune de ce mot.... Sa dignité de Prêtre, jointe au désir constant d’arriver au Ministère, lui avoit donné l’extérieur réfléchi d’un homme d’état, et il en avoit la réputation avant d’avoir été mis à portée de la dementir.... Il n’étoit ni assez éclairé pour être philosophe, ni assez ferme pour être despote; il admiroit tour à tour la conduite du Cardinal de Richelieu, et les principes des encyclopédistes.”--Considérations sur la Révolution Française.--His brief administrations made the Revolution inevitable, and he was among its early victims. The manner of his death is uncertain; the Abbé Morellet, his friend and dependant, insinuating that he poisoned himself. According to an article in the Biographie Universelle, which is very carefully written, he died in consequence of the brutal treatment he received from some soldiers at Sens. The Abbé makes a feeble effort to defend his memory.--(Mémoires de Morellet, vol. i. p. 17; vol. ii. p. 16–467.)--E.

[213] He also became at a great age Chief Minister, in the next reign, and died so. Walpole must have written this eulogy on Maurepas before the latter was restored to office. Agreeable as he might be in society, he proved a most inefficient minister, and altogether unequal to the times. He died in 1781, eighty years old, regretted only by the King and the courtiers, who enjoyed his wit and profited by his patronage. One of his last acts was the disgrace of Necker, a minister who perhaps could then have saved the monarchy, though he afterwards hastened its downfall.--E.

[214] He was related to the Duc de Bouillon by his mother, the Princess Clementina Sobieski.--[Lord Mahon’s Hist. of England, vol. iii. p. 523.--E.]

[215] Clement XIII. His name was Charles Rezzonico, a Venetian.

[216] Avignon.

[217] After a reign of twenty years. He had governed his small kingdom with prudence and ability; and had shown spirit and firmness in the manner in which he met the preparations made by Peter III. for invading Denmark, in 1762. He has the honour of having employed the celebrated Niebuhr, on that scientific expedition to the East, of which the latter has left so interesting a description.--E.