Chapter XII (5)

[225] The Cardinal was drawn from the obscurity in which he had lived since his disgrace in 1758, for the purpose of this mission. He continued Ambassador at Rome until his death, in 1794, in his eighty-fifth year. A memoir of him, by the Abbé Feletz, of the French Academy, forms one of the best-written articles in the Biographie Universelle. It would be more valuable if it were less of an éloge. The Cardinal judged wisely in opposing the Austrian alliance: but like other French statesmen, he took care to make his opposition subservient to his interest. Indeed there is little either in his moral or political conduct to deserve commendation until he was securely settled at Rome. He owed his elevation entirely to Madame de Pompadour, whose favour he had earned by betraying to her the King’s intrigue with Madame de Choiseul--a secret with which that lady had imprudently intrusted him.--(See more of him in the Memoires de Duclos, vol. ii. p. 172; Lacretelle’s Histoire de France, vol. iii. p. 161.)--E.

[226] The disapprobation with which Ganganelli was known to regard the policy of the Jesuits procured him the support of France and Austria, and consequently his election. It was not, however, until the year 1773 that he issued the brief for the extinction of the order. The troubles in which this step involved him shortened his life. His advanced age, for he was sixty-nine years old, the cares of Government, and his sedentary studious habits, were held insufficient causes for his death, without adding it to the catalogue of the crimes of the Jesuits; and volumes were written to support and to repel the charge.--E.

[227] The Count du Châtelet, afterwards Duc, has been mentioned with respect by the French historians of the day, and his name is associated with more important transactions than this miserable affair. The King’s esteem raised him to the command of the guards on the death of the Duc de Biron. In common with other enlightened men attached to the Court, he supported the reforms best calculated to ameliorate the condition of the people. His popularity caused him to be fixed on as a successor to Brienne in the Presidentship of the Council,--a dangerous honour, which he wisely declined. He was, however, one of the early victims of the Reign of Terror, and after a fruitless attempt to commit suicide, perished by the guillotine on the 13th of December, 1793. His wife soon followed him to the scaffold.--E.

[228] It was believed that he had acted under secret instructions from the Empress; although, in conformity with the practice of the Russian Court, he was left to bear the blame of failure. On his return to St. Petersburg he was placed at the head of the marine department, and held that post during several years, with a very poor reputation. He escaped dismissal only because Catherine made it a principle to change as seldom as possible either her Ministers or Ambassadors.--(Tooke’s Life of Catherine the Second, vol. i. p. 304; vol ii. p. 46.)--E.

[229] Circulars were addressed by Lord Rochford to the British Ministers at foreign Courts with an account of this transaction.--(See letter to Sir A. Mitchell, in Ellis’s Original Letters, vol. iv. p. 521.)--E.

[230] A minute of Lord Chatham’s representations to the King is given in the Duke of Grafton’s Memoirs, as if on his Majesty’s authority. It confirms the statement in the text, with the addition, however, of Lord Chatham having assured the King that in his state of health office could no longer be even desirable to him.--E.

[231] Being asked soon afterwards, by Sir W. Meredith, if he was likely to come in, he replied, “Good God! I!--with whom, and for whom?” There would have been great sense in this answer, if he had not often shown that he was indifferent _with whom_, and nobody could tell _for_ whom he had ever come in: though his enemies would say, _only for himself_; and Britain ought to say _for her_ in his successful Administration.

[232] Lord Temple, too, as if not without hopes, had shifted off to September the meeting in Buckinghamshire for determining whether that county should petition or not; and he might hope that the popular clamour would drive the Court to have recourse to Lord Chatham and him.

[233] Edward Harvey. M.P. for Harwich, Governor of Portsmouth, and Adjutant-General of the Forces. He bore a very high reputation in the army, having served with great distinction on the Staff during the seven years’ war. Prince Ferdinand frequently employed him on missions to England, when there was any important military business to transact, and he seems to have been equally in the confidence of the Prince and the English Government. The King also entertained a warm regard for him, and took much pleasure in his society; no one perhaps being more constantly his Majesty’s attendant in his rides. On one occasion, when they were riding together in a heavy shower of rain, the General having no great-coat, the King lent him his own. The difficulty then arose whether it was to be returned or not. At length the General decided on returning it. The King remarked, “You have sent back my great-coat, I see.” “Please your Majesty,” was the reply, “I could not presume to offer a new one.” “Quite right, quite right,” rejoined the King; “there may as well be two good men in the coat as one.” The General usually resided at Blackheath. He died on April the 16th, 1778. He was the brother of Mr. William Harvey of Chigwell, and uncle of the late Admiral Sir Eliab Harvey, G.C.B.--E.

[234] If these Memoirs had been written at a later period, Walpole would have mentioned Horne Tooke’s talents with more respect. He was, however, at this time little known, except for his quarrel with Wilkes, when, as Lord Brougham justly observes, “though he was clearly in the right, he became the object of general and fierce popular indignation, for daring to combat the worthless idol of the mob.”--(Sketches of British Statesmen, vol. ii. p. 119.)--E.

[235] Son of the late Speaker. He became Lord Onslow by the death of his cousin in 1776, was created Earl Onslow in 1801, and died in 1814. He had lived on terms of great intimacy with Wilkes, whom, in a letter printed by Almon, he praises with the warmth of a partisan.--(See Life of Wilkes, vol. v. p. 240.)--E.

[236] The trial terminated in Mr. Onslow’s nonsuit, in consequence of the word _pounds_ being inserted in the record instead of the word _pound_. The case was re-heard at Guildhall, when Mr. Onslow was again nonsuited. The trial was supposed to have cost him 1500_l._ The whole transaction was most discreditable to Mr. Horne.--(Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 196.)--E.

[237] The Duke gives some account, in his plain simple style, of these brutal outrages in his Journal.--(Cavendish, vol. i. p. 621.)--He appears to have had a narrow escape of being murdered at Honiton. It is pleasing to find in his entry of the following day, a picture presenting a striking contrast to this disgraceful tumult:--“I went in the morning to Barwick Place, where my ancestors lived, in Dorsetshire. It is a fine farm, but a dismal place. From thence I went by the sea-side through Kingston Russell farm, to Mr. Hardy, my tenant’s house, where I dined. This is an exceeding fine farm, and has the finest ewe leasows I ever saw in my life. After a very good farmer-like dinner, and a hearty welcome, I set out for Blandford.”--E.

[238] He had, moreover, at his seat at Kingsgate, in the Isle of Thanet, erected a pillar to the honour of Alderman Harley, the most unpopular of all the City’s magistrates.

[239] These accounts were not settled at Lord Holland’s death, and his family profited of the interest of 400,000_l._ still remaining in his hands. Lord North was very earnest to have the account made up, and yet it was not finally closed in the middle of the year 1777, which shows the intricacy and difficulty of terminating such accounts. [The delay was no fault of Lord Holland’s; it arose from the imperfect system of auditing the public accounts in that day. Lord Holland had been out of office only three years and a-half. Mr. Winnington’s accounts for 1744–6 were only settled in 1760, or fourteen years after their close, and Lord Chatham’s remained open for the same period.--(Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. iii. p. 136.)--It should, however, be stated, in fairness to Lord Chatham, that he derived no benefit from the balance in his favour, having left all his receipts in the Bank of England.--(See Lord Holland’s Memorial, and other papers arising out of this accusation in the notes to Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 184.)--E.]

[240] Lord Chatham, Lord Temple, and Mr. Grenville. A petition from Ailesbury being soon after agreed on, the members of the meeting drank a health to the union of the three brothers. How little union there really was amongst them appeared afterwards, for Mr. Grenville had before his death made his peace with the Court without any consideration of Lord Chatham, and so did Lord Temple in like manner in 1777. All the latter part of Lord Temple’s life was one continued scene of quarrels and reconciliations with his family and friends, according as his passions or restless ambition dictated.--(See the MS. Memoirs of the Duke of Grafton, Appendix, on the subject of these petitions.)

[241] Letter to the Duke of Bedford, 19th September. Twenty-third Letter.--E.

[242] Sir William Draper’s Letter to Junius, 7th October 1769. Junius’s Twenty-sixth Letter.--E.

[243] The proceedings in the House of Commons on Dr. Musgrave’s charge are given in Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 763. Lord Mahon notices the charge as being utterly unfounded.--(History, vol. iv. p. 410.) Dr. Musgrave had published an excellent edition of Euripides, but in his latter years his reason was believed to be clouded. He died in 1780.--E.

[244] This does not agree with the authenticated accounts of the war in Corsica. So far from it, Paoli at first succeeded in repelling the attacks of the French, notwithstanding their superiority of numbers. They were worsted in an engagement near Loreto, with great loss, several companies having been drowned in the Golo in the attempt to make their escape. On the 29th of October the corps sent to attack Murato received a signal defeat, their commander being among the slain.--(Sismondi’s Histoire de France, vol. xxix. p. 380.)--The overwhelming force brought over by the Count de Vaux early in 1769 soon dispersed the Corsican levies, and rendered all further resistance on the part of Paoli perfectly vain. Paoli was much respected in England by men of all parties. At the commencement of the Revolution he was invited to France, and after an enthusiastic reception by the National Assembly, placed in the command of Corsica, with the rank of Lieutenant-General of the Island. The troubles that followed led him to offer the Crown to England in 1793; but the English rule proved unfortunate both to the Corsicans and to himself. He soon returned to England, and died in the neighbourhood of London, in his eightieth year. He left a considerable fortune, part of which eventually fell under the administration of the Court of Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor issued a commission to Corsica to ascertain his heirs.--See more of him in Capefigue Diplomates Européens, pp. 123–133--E.

[245] According to the Duke’s own account in his Memoirs he was at this time on uneasy terms with his colleagues, of whose general policy he disapproved, and by whom he was generally outvoted in the Cabinet. Nothing but the absence of an adequate excuse for resignation kept him in office. It may be observed, also, that his marriage (to Miss Jane Wrottesly), which took place on the 24th of June, had been followed by his installation at Cambridge, where his presence was indispensable.--E.

[246] Mr. Thomas Pitt, nephew of Lord Chatham, was on some occasions a man of probity and generosity. He gave five thousand pounds a-piece to his two sisters, left destitute by their father; and himself marrying Miss Wilkinson, whose elder sister had disobliged their father by marrying against his consent, both Mr. Pitt and his wife would not conclude their marriage without disclaiming all advantage to the prejudice of the elder sister. [See vol. i. p. 339. His nominees were Mr. Gerard Hamilton, and Mr. Crawford, Chamberlain for the County of Fife.--E.]

[247] He was on that day aged forty-five, the date of his famous number and device.

[248] The knowledge of this fact is said to have been the reason why the jury did not give higher damages.--E.

[249] James Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare, first Duke of Leinster. [An amiable nobleman, always zealous to promote the welfare of his country. He died in 1773.--E.]

[250] The King’s Letters to Lord North contain the following reference to Lord Shannon and another politician of the same stamp. “Lord Townshend’s idea of a pension to Lord Shannon is absurd--to let him do all the mischief he can while his assistance could be of use, and then reward him when his good wishes can avail nothing. Mr. Allen is only an additional proof of that aversion to English Government and of _that avowed profligacy_ that the gentlemen of that country seem to despise masking with the name of conscience, and must sooner or later oblige this country seriously to consider whether the uniting it to this Crown would not be the only means of making both islands flourishing.” Lord Shannon died in 1807.--E.

[251] In the money-bills, the Irish Parliament had endeavoured to lay a tax on English beer, but it was rejected by a few voices; the Speaker, fearing to lose his place of 4000_l._ a-year at the head of the revenue, should they provoke England too far. They made an alteration, however, in their own gauging, which some here thought equivalent to a tax on our beer, and the Council were inclined to reject that alteration, yet, desirous of getting the money-bills passed, and the Attorney-General declaring that it was no violation of Poynings’s Act, the alteration was suffered to remain, and the money-bills were sent back uncorrected.

[252] Of King’s Remembrancer. It was a little before this time that Calcraft, ignoble as his birth and rise were, aspired, by the Duke of Grafton’s favour, to the title of Earl of Ormond. George Selwyn said, “Calcraft might have pretensions to that title, as no doubt he must have had many _Butlers_ in his family.”

[253] Junius’s account of the prosecution, Letter xxxiii, is fair--making the usual deductions. See also Rex _v._ Vaughan (Burrow’s Reports, vol. iv. p. 4494)--by which it seems that the motion for the criminal information was made by Mr. Dunning.--“An Appeal to the Public on Behalf of Samuel Vaughan Esq.,” 8vo., states some mitigating circumstances.--E.

[254] Of Valeroyal [he died in 1779, aged fifty-three].--E.

[255] The evidence of Sir Philip Francis being the author of Junius has been observed by an eminent lawyer who took no part in the controversy, to be such as would be held conclusive by a jury on a question of fact.--E.

[256] By Earl Waldegrave she had three daughters,--the Ladies Laura, Maria, and Horatia.

[257] The King and Queen certainly intended it should be supposed Lady Waldegrave was the Duke’s mistress. The world interpreted it in a contrary sense in compliment to the Queen’s virtue, who on that occasion wished her virtue had been thought more accommodating.

[258] Walpole is mistaken here. The King was at least as much opposed to the Duke of Gloucester’s marriage as the Princess Dowager. As late as in 1775 his sentiments remained unaltered, and in granting the Duke permission to travel on the Continent, he positively declined to make a provision for his Royal Highness’s family. In a letter to Lord North, 15th January, 1775, the King says--“I cannot deny that on the subject of this Duke my heart is wounded. I have ever loved him with the fondness one bears to a child.” “His highly disgraceful step,” &c. “--his wife, whom I never can think of placing in a situation to answer her extreme pride and vanity. Should any accident befall the Duke, I shall certainly provide for his children.”

Eventually the King acted with great generosity towards the Duchess and her son and daughter by the Duke. Their conduct was so irreproachable that the marriage could no longer have been a subject of regret to him.--E.

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks were corrected.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.

“Massachusets” was mostly spelled that way throughout this book.