CHAPTER IX.

Election of the Lord Mayor.--Movements of the Pretender.--Conduct of Lord Townshend in Ireland.--Pensions.--Money Bills.--Lord Rockingham ceases Parliamentary Opposition.--The Army is composed of Scotchmen.--Sir James Lowther loses his Cause.--Court Party Predominant.--Private Distresses of the King.--Illness of the Princess Dowager and the Duke of Gloucester.--The Duke of Cumberland marries Colonel Lutterell’s Sister.--Her Character and Family.--Public Opinion on the Marriage.--Anecdote of Sir Robert Walpole.--The King’s Treatment of the Duke.--The Duke of Gloucester’s Health Improves.--Death of the Princess Dowager.

1771.

On the 12th of September died, after a very short indisposition, Mr. Robert Wood, a man whose character was much brighter in the literary than in the political world.

In October came on the election of the Lord Mayor. Sawbridge and Townshend, the late Sheriffs, declared themselves candidates. The Court were afraid publicly to interfere; but they excited the wealthier merchants, who groaned under the ascendant of the upstart tribunes, to make a stand against the popular faction. The idea was eagerly embraced, and one Nash, a senior Alderman, and very opulent grocer,[207] was set up against the two demagogues. Townshend’s friends tried to persuade him to waive his pretensions in favour of Sawbridge, that the popular interest might not be divided; but acquiescence and prudence were not the tone of that Opposition. Nash was grievously insulted and almost killed in his passage to the election; but, in the Hall, Wilkes himself was more the object of attacks, both Sawbridge and Townshend reviling him, and the latter hinting at his insertion of abusive paragraphs in the newspapers. Wilkes challenged them both to prove their accusations. Townshend equivocated; Sawbridge denied his having alluded to Wilkes. These squabbles, and the outrageous behaviour of Captain Allen, who vomited out invectives against the House of Commons[208] on his own case, raised such heats and dissensions, that Nash was elected Mayor, and Townshend driven out of the court with hisses. Between him and Wilkes a war of words and libels and giving the lie ensued; Wilkes, with impudent humour, abused Townshend for having reflected illiberally on the Princess of Wales in the House of Commons. On entering on his shrievalty, Wilkes canvassed for popularity by ordering the irons of criminals to be knocked off during their trials, and by allowing all persons to enter the court without paying for admittance; but this reformation created so much crowding and disturbance, that the magistrates were forced to interpose. To balance these attempts, Townshend refused, as he had often promised, to pay the land-tax for Middlesex, on the pretended plea that the county was not legally represented; but his goods being distrained, nobody chose to be a confessor in the same cause.

At the beginning of the month the Pretender suddenly disappeared, in the most secret manner, and with scarce any attendance. As France had lately sent the Marquis de Viomenil, an able general, with sixty officers, to Poland, it was supposed that she favoured that adventurer in his pursuit of a crown that tottered on the head of the wearer, and to which Stuart, by his mother Sobieski, was allied. The first news learned of him was, that he was at Paris, protected by the Duc d’Aiguillon, who had always wished well to his cause. This was, however, soon denied; and it was pretended that the Marquis de Fitzjames, grandson of the Duke of Berwick, had received orders from Versailles to re-conduct the Prince, his cousin, to Genoa. In the streets of that city chance gave him and the Duke of Gloucester to meet. They bowed, turned back, and both smiled. During the Pretender’s eclipse, the Cardinal of York being questioned on the motive of his brother’s journey, replied enigmatically, “He is gone whither he should have gone a year ago;” a sentence not understood till six months after, when it came out that Stuart had gone to Paris to see the Princess of Stolberg, whom he married there by proxy in the March following,--no contradiction of the idea that D’Aiguillon favoured the House of Stuart. He had long countenanced the Jesuits, though the emergence of party now obliged him, in opposition to the Chancellor, to take the contrary part.

In Ireland the scene was very turbulent. Lord Townshend’s conduct was equally insolent and preposterous. He set the whole nation at defiance; shut himself up with a low woman and her friends, and at his own table publicly ridiculed all parties, declaring he knew he could, and declaring he would buy a majority. Nor was this silly profligacy confined within the palace. He wrote satiric ballads on friends and foes, and distributed them without reserve. To the shame of the Irish Parliament, and to the dishonour of the English Government, that still supported such a buffoon, a list of pensions to the amount of 25,000_l._ a-year was sent by him to London, and though delayed, was not rejected. Still as the English Administration demurred on the demand, they who had promised their votes for promises, not seeing the conditions performed, threw their weight into the opposite scale, lest the Viceroy, profiting of their acquiescence, should afterwards frustrate their hopes. These fluctuations, and the acrimony of the rest of the Opposition, who were men of parts superior to those employed by the Lord-Lieutenant, cost the Castle a question early in the session; nor were its advocates prepared to support even the address on the speech; for the capricious ruler had neither sent a copy of the speech to England, nor communicated it to many in office. It was consequently composed with his Lordship’s usual want of judgment, and gave much offence by charging the deficiencies of the revenue on the improvements of the country, whereas they flowed notoriously from the late long prorogation of Parliament. This defeat alarmed the Court of England, but instead of recalling the culpable Viceroy, they granted him his full catalogue of pensions, excepting only 2000_l._ a-year to his secretary, Sir George Maccartney, who being son-in-law of Lord Bute, it was not thought advisable to furnish so unpopular a topic to either country.[209] The confirmation of their pensions soon recalled the stragglers, and procured a considerable majority to the Castle; but the debates were so long, and were followed by such zealous libations, that Dr. Lucas, the Wilkes of Ireland, fell a victim to his patriotic fatigues. Still the wanton intemperance of Lord Townshend’s tongue and conduct, and a further stretch of authority in erecting new wards of revenue for the sake of multiplying offices, once more turned the scale, and by the end of November he lost a question against a majority of 46, who voted that it appeared to the House by evidence that the former boards of Custom and Excise had been sufficient, and that there was no want of more commissioners. Many of the placed voted against the Castle. The late pension to Dyson had given much additional disgust, being a formal breach of the King’s promise given by the Duke of Northumberland that no more pensions for terms of years should be granted but on extraordinary occasions: and the Irish Attorney-General being asked what such occasions were, had replied, On such cases as Sir Edward Hawke’s and Prince Ferdinand’s. Was Dyson’s pension a violation of that engagement, or was such a prostitute tool of office a proper pendent to the victor of the Spanish navy, or to the hero of Minden? Those ill-humours, it was feared, would induce the House of Commons not to send over the money bills; yet so great was the attachment of the Irish Whigs to the English Government, that they did transmit the bills hither, content with resolving, by a majority of one vote only, that they would make no provision for Dyson’s pension. A fresh indiscretion, negligence, or trick, turned the scale once more against the Castle. Two copies of all bills, for fear of miscarriage, are always sent by different roads to Dublin. In one copy of the returned bills which happened to arrive first, the English Attorney-General, to whom they were referred, had omitted the word “cottons.” The Irish Commons, who deny the Crown’s right of altering a money bill, flamed at the omission, and though the exact copy arrived four days after the former, and was offered to the House by the Lord-Lieutenant, the tenacious Commons adhered to their rejection. The English Government immediately abandoned the alteration, but, to preserve the King’s pretensions to a power of altering a money bill, they changed the monosyllable _and_ for _or_, which was accepted in Ireland, and returned time enough to save the expiration of the annual duties; yet the time pressed so much, that orders were sent to the Custom-house officers at Dublin, to plead the recess for the Christmas holidays, as an excuse for not clearing several ships then in port, who, as the annual bill was on the point of expiring, would not have paid the duties. It was marvellous in the eyes of most men that after such repeated mismanagement Lord Townshend should be suffered to retain his government. Many imputed it to his favour with Lord Bute; yet his daily insults to Sir George Maccartney, the Earl’s son-in-law, gave him little title to that patronage. I believe two other causes contributed to Lord Townshend’s impunity: one, the difficulty of finding a successor, every man of character or prudence dreading the abuse or the expense attendant on that post; the other was the King’s satisfaction in being able to govern one of his kingdoms, at least, by so worthless a Minister--for to be able to do wrong to a whole nation is the flowering time of prerogative. The Earl of Shannon was soon after gained over by hereditary corruption, and Lord Townshend remained triumphant.

I shall briefly recapitulate a few incidents that fell out in the remainder of the year, and then close these long Memoirs with two events, of which, one was a royal marriage of the most extraordinary complexion, the other a royal death, which put an end to an influence that had given colour to all the troubles of the present reign.

Lord Rockingham and his friends, wearied out by continual defeats, the consequences, in a good measure, of their own weak conduct, determined to sit still and give over parliamentary opposition, unless any new invasions of the constitution by the Crown should awaken the people to resistance, or foreign troubles should give an opportunity of attacking the Court by its becoming unpopular; for one of the evils of bad government is, that even the best men are apt to regard foreign disgraces as small misfortunes, when they serve to check the insolence of domestic tyranny. Yet might war be an additional evil; success would advance the power of the Crown, and such unrelaxed attention to recruiting the army with Scotchmen had been kept up, that the King had reason to depend on blind obedience from a great proportion of it. The marines were almost all Scots. The haughty English were too much at their ease to enlist in that despised service. The Scots, with not less pride, were never stubborn to their interest. A new occasion gave handle to reviving abuse on that nation and on their countryman Lord Mansfield. One Eyre, a wealthy citizen, had been detected in stealing writing-paper from public offices, was tried and convicted of that mean pilfering. He had married a Scottish woman, and three of her kinsmen solicited the Chief Justice to allow him to be bailed, which was granted. This partiality occasioning clamour, the three Scots avowed and defended in the public papers what they had done, which but increased the scandal and redoubled the abuse on their nation. It was a greater triumph to the discontented, that the cause between Sir James Lowther and the Duke of Portland for Inglewood Forest being at last heard, the former was non-suited, his counsel, Sir Fletcher Norton, now Speaker, having forgotten, in drawing the grant, to insert a reserve of the third part of the rent to the Crown. But these were trifling consolations. The Court was predominant at home; Wilkes was fallen, the City was recovering from the dominion of the popular tribunes, the Rockingham party was crest-fallen, and now came news that Spain had actually restored to us the Falkland Islands, which it had been doubted she ever would surrender. Thus was the King at peace both at home and abroad, after a vexatious and ignominious struggle for near eleven years. It seemed an additional promise of tranquillity to him that his mother, who, by the bad education she had given him, and the bias which she impressed by her creatures on his counsels, was now known to be dying; and though she had lost much of her influence, she retained enough over his awe of her, to perplex his measures and throw uncertainty over the duration of his Ministries. At this very period such a storm of private calamities burst on his head as few kings ever experienced at once. Part of them touched his pride, and accordingly penetrated deep; he had a happy insensibility that surmounted the rest without an effort.

The malignant humour in the blood of the Princess Dowager had fallen on her throat, and though her fortitude was invincible and her secrecy and reserve invariable, the disorder could no longer be concealed. She could swallow but with great difficulty, and not enough to maintain life long. At times her sufferings and her struggles to hide them were so much beyond her strength, that she frequently fainted, and was thought dead. Yet would she not allow she was ill, even to her children; nor would she suffer a single physician or surgeon to inspect her throat, trusting herself solely to a German page who had some medical knowledge: and going out to take the air, long after it was expected that she would die in her coach. Her danger was publicly known by the beginning of November, on the fifth of which month, when her death was hourly expected, an express arrived from Leghorn, that her son the Duke of Gloucester was at the point of death there, and it was concluded by that time dead. He had gone to a warmer climate in search of health, and having passed by sea from Genoa to Leghorn, had fallen into a diarrhœa, attended by every bad symptom.

The very next day it became public that the Duke of Cumberland had, on the first of the month, retired to Calais with a widow, Mrs. Horton, whom he had married, and had notified his wedding to the King. What was the astonishment of mankind, what the mortification of the King and Princess, and what the triumph of Wilkes, when it came out that this new Princess of the Blood, was own sister of the famous Colonel Lutterell, the tool thrust by the Court into Wilkes’s seat for Middlesex! Could punishment be more severe than to be thus scourged by their own instrument? And how singular the fate of Wilkes, that new revenge always presented itself to him when he was sunk to the lowest ebb!

The Duke of Cumberland, after having been exposed to the derision of mankind by his foolish letters, by his absurd conduct in his intrigue, and by his pusillanimity on the detection, had added perfidy to ridicule, and abandoned his victim to her shame. He had next engaged openly in an intrigue with another married woman, a very handsome wife of a timber-merchant; and it was uncertain which was most proud of the honour, the husband or the wife. But they had not long displayed their triumph in all public places, before the restless Duke seeking new diversions, was made a more substantial conquest of at Brighthelmstone by Mrs. Horton, who had for many months been dallying with his passion, till she had fixed him to more serious views than he had intended.

She was daughter of Simon Lutterell, Lord Irnham, and had married a gentleman of fortune, with whom she had been in love; and had the misfortune of losing an only child, an infant daughter, and her husband within a fortnight of each other, still covering her grief for the first to conceal the misfortune from the last. She was rather pretty than handsome, and had more the air of a woman of pleasure than of a woman of quality, though she was well made, was graceful, and unexceptionable in her conduct and behaviour. But there was something so bewitching in her languishing eyes, which she could animate to enchantment if she pleased, and her coquetry was so active, so varied, and yet so habitual, that it was difficult not to see through it, and yet as difficult to resist it. She danced divinely, and had a great deal of wit, but of the satiric kind; and, as she had haughtiness before her rise, no wonder she claimed all the observance due to her rank after she became Duchess of Cumberland. It had been believed that she would marry General Smith, a very handsome well-built young man; but glory was her passion, and she sacrificed her lover to it, as she had never sacrificed her virtue to her lover. Thus in herself she was unexceptionable--at least, superior to the frailty of her sex, if not above its little ambition. From her family, though ancient, she drew many disadvantages. Her ancestors had been noted and long odious in Ireland for treachery, villany, and arrogance. Her father did not retrieve the honour of his blood, and though very brave in his person, and tolerably brutal, had every other failure of his race. Nor was he happier in his own issue. Not intending to return to his native country, Ireland, he had given up his house there to his son, but changing his mind, went thither. His son shut both his father and mother out of the mansion house, and was countenanced by his brothers and sisters,--a scene of vexation that pierced the mother’s heart, and threw her into religious melancholy. But to the King the most grievous part of the affliction was the connection with Colonel Lutterell, and the satisfaction it must give to the friends of the constitution to see the invasion of their privileges punished by the same hand by which they had been attacked; for it was soon known that Mrs. Horton’s brothers had been privy to the matrimonial transaction between the Duke and their sister. The Duke’s flight to Calais with his bride spoke as little heroism as he had exerted on former occasions, and showed how little consultation he had held on the validity of his marriage; yet it proved indissoluble, the royal family being expressly excepted out of the late Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act. That proud legislator had indeed inserted them; but the late Duke of Cumberland and Lord Holland, in order to traverse Hardwicke, had represented to the late King that it was an indignity to the Princes of the Blood to be levelled with the mass of his subjects, and the haughty Monarch had ordered them to be erased out of the bill, saying, “I will not have my family laid under those restraints.”

The King, Queen, and Princess Dowager were beyond measure enraged at this degradation of their house; but the misfortune was regarded with indifference or ridiculed by almost every one else. Yet though the King was not pitied, no indulgence was shown to the Duke; even the Opposition giving him up as Lutterell’s sister had been the object of his choice. The zealous--that is, the servile courtiers were loud in their condemnation. Even the placid and plausible Lord Barrington pronounced that the new Princess deserved to lose her head,--a wretched imitation of Lord Clarendon’s[210] outrageous strain of affectation, who pretended to demand the trial and execution of his own daughter for marrying the Duke of York. The Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter of James the Second, a steady and active Jacobite, observing Sir Robert Walpole’s partiality to his natural daughter, Lady Mary, sent for him, and asked him if he recollected what had not been thought too great a reward to Lord Clarendon for restoring the royal family? He pretended not to understand her. She said, Was not the Duke of York allowed to marry his daughter? Sir Robert smiled, but told her he was content with the honours he had attained. He little thought his natural granddaughter would obtain a rank he declined for his natural daughter!

The Duke of Cumberland’s marriage was, indeed, a heavy blow on Lady Waldegrave, and seemed to cut off all hopes of the King’s permitting the Duke of Gloucester to acknowledge her for his wife. It might even inspire the King with the thought of, or furnish him with an excuse for, breaking such marriages. At the best it would be a great drawback on her dignity. The honour became less valuable when shared with Lutterell’s sister; and though hitherto all the world had paid her distinguished regard, and, from her singular piety, virtue, and propriety of behaviour, had concurred in believing her married, her situation became more problematic when Mrs. Horton assumed the title of Duchess of Cumberland, and she did not dare to wear that of Duchess of Gloucester.

It was still more remarkable that every one of the four eldest royal brothers either had married, were said to have married, or were on the point of marrying, subjects. Edward Duke of York had made love to Lady Mary Coke, whose great birth, great ambition and pride, and untainted virtue, had certainly never entertained his addresses in a criminal light. In truth, for some time his attachment had seemed serious; and though it had not only worn away for the two last years of his life, but that he had made a jest of her pretensions, he had written her such letters as at least she chose to construe into promises of marriage, and which, to colour the immoderate grief she acted for his death, she carried to Princess Amelie, as proofs that her trust had been well founded: but, as the Duke was very liberal of his overtures, there was a young Irish gentlewoman, whose intellects not being sound, proclaimed herself loudly his widow. The Dukes of Gloucester and Cumberland had, as I have said, gone much farther; and the King himself, as I have mentioned, seemed to have designed to make Lady Sarah Lenox his Queen.

The King sent orders to the Duke of Cumberland not to appear at Court. While he stayed at Calais, he gave balls under a feigned name, and with his Duchess made a tour to some towns in French Flanders.

Finding at last that no violence would be attempted against his person, he returned to England on the 30th of November, and retired with his Duchess to his lodge in the great park at Windsor, which the King did not take from him. Even his gentlemen equerries were permitted to remain about his person, having been chosen by the King, and having had no knowledge of the Duke’s wedding. But the Guards were withdrawn, and the Lord Chamberlain was ordered to whisper, though not in form, that whoever went to the Duke or Duchess of Cumberland must not appear at Court. The same information was given privately to the Foreign Ministers; and the effect was so universal, or the contempt for the Duke and hatred of his new connection so general, that not a man even of the Opposition made him a visit. Sir John Delaval[211] and his wife, the Duke’s intimates, were the sole persons of a rank above the vulgar that went near them, except the Lutterells. Temple Lutterell, one of the brothers, a very sensible lawyer, was supposed to be author of many libels published in the papers against the King’s cruelty to his brother; yet it ought to be acknowledged, that the King could not well express less resentment.

In the meantime came more favourable accounts of the Duke of Gloucester. He recovered, though the hiccup and symptoms of death had appeared on him; and as soon as his strength was a little recruited, he sailed to Naples, the voyage whither again brought on a return of his flux; but he once more mastered it; and the English physicians were of opinion that the discharge might for some time relieve the virulence of his complaint, though no man flattered himself with a long duration of the Duke’s life. On his return he visited Rome, and the Stuarts had once more the mortification of seeing a Prince of the rival Blood, and a Protestant, distinguished with peculiar honours by a Pope, who even conversed with him.

This was the last gleam of comfort to the dying Princess: but this reprieve of her son was bitterly dashed by the shame and misery that fell on her daughter, the Queen of Denmark, of which, as she languished till the beginning of the next year,[212] she lived long enough to hear, and but just long enough to die with the anxiety of dreading a fatal conclusion to that daughter.

She now beheld the wretched consequences of the wretched education she had given her children. The Queen of Denmark had been kept in her nursery till sent to Copenhagen; had had no company but servants, and could have seen nothing but an intimacy with Lord Bute, which all the Princess’s children spoke of with disgust; and could have heard nothing but passionate lamentations from the Princess on the impotence of power possessed by English Sovereigns,--lessons that seem to have made but too deep impression on the inexperienced young Queen of Denmark, when she came to have a lover, and be mistress of absolute power. The Duke of Gloucester, the Princess of Wales had always loved the least, though the most meritorious of her children. She thought him insuperably dull,--nor was he bright: one day in his childhood she ridiculed him before his brothers and sisters, and bade them laugh at the fool. He sat silent and thoughtful. She said, “What! now you are sullen.” He replied, “No, he was thinking.”--“Thinking!” replied his mother, with scorn; “and pray, what was you thinking of?” He answered, “I was thinking what I should feel if I had a son as unhappy as you make me!”

This unfortunate mother’s fate is a speaking lesson to princes. Had the credit and happiness of her children been her object, her own life might, except in those she lost, have been prosperous and renowned. Her own ambition, and the desire of making her son more powerful than the laws allowed, led her and him into disgraces, mortifications, humiliations. Reviled, traduced, hated, she scarce dared to appear out of her palace; her Favourite she saw driven from his country, and his life frequently endangered. Her younger children disgraced her; and the eldest, as well as herself, missed the despotism she sought for both, and obtained only that triste pre-eminence of Turkish sultans, being shut up with mutes in their own seraglio.

APPENDIX.

I.

CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF LORD BUTE.

(Vol. i. p. 10.)

Walpole is correct in stating that “Mr. Pitt had been for some time on the coldest terms with Lord Bute.”

What was the original cause of this coldness does not appear. Among the Elliot MSS. is a long letter from Lord Bute to Sir Gilbert Elliot, dated the 30th of April, 1760, expressing deep regret at the interruption of the “fraternal union” which had previously subsisted between him and Mr. Pitt, and empowering Sir Gilbert to use the first favourable opportunity to bring about a reconciliation.

Efforts were accordingly made by Sir Gilbert to satisfy Mr. Pitt, and they elicited a long statement from the latter of his grievances, which is not very intelligible, except that jealousy at the superior favour and influence attained by Lord Bute at Leicester House was his most prominent feeling. When Lord Bute and Mr. Pitt met at Kew on the King’s accession, no intercourse had taken place between them for some months; on that occasion some mutual civilities passed and nothing more.

The meeting between Lord Bute and Mr. Pitt, after the council, (_supra_ vol. i. p. 9,) was at the request of Lord Bute, and not of Mr. Pitt, and it was sought by the former in the hope of his being able to recover Mr. Pitt’s regard. He made every concession that the nicest honour could have required, to Mr. Pitt’s private feelings, and expressed unqualified approbation of his public conduct, even with respect to the war, and ended by offering him his cordial and sincere friendship. Mr. Pitt’s answer certainly held out no prospect of any reconciliation; it is cold and repulsive. He makes it plain that he would insist on entire and uncontrolled power in the cabinet; and the language in which this determination is expressed must have been most unpleasant to Lord Bute, as conveying an implied censure of his political views, which he admitted were to give disinterested assistance, as the King’s friend, in carrying on the government.[213]

The position which Lord Bute thus designed for himself was as visionary as that “Patriot King” described by Bolingbroke; but Lord Bute was himself a visionary, and if Mr. Pitt had possessed the tact and temper of Sir Robert Walpole, he might have gained such an ascendancy over Lord Bute as to make the latter instrumental in carrying on his government. But Mr. Pitt too heartily despised and disliked Lord Bute to condescend to manage him, and there were others without the same fastidiousness, who soon turned the vain ambition of that nobleman to their own account. It was his constant interference, as well in public measures as in the disposal of patronage, that led to his appointment to the Secretaryship. Some of the Ministers thought, and wisely too, that his being a member of the Government would make him less dangerous.[214] Their own intrigues, however, led to his further elevation, the natural and inevitable result of which was, his utter failure and precipitate fall.

Walpole, in more mature age, expressed a more favourable opinion of Lord Bute than will be collected from this work. He says:--

“Lord Bute was my schoolfellow. He was a man of taste and science, and I do believe his intentions were good. He wished to blend and unite all parties. The Tories were willing to come in for a _share_ of power, after having been so long excluded,--but the Whigs were not willing to grant that share. Power is an intoxicating draught; the more a man has, the more he desires.”[215]

The most able character of Lord Bute, and a masterly one it is, has been drawn by Lord Chesterfield.[216] No one can read it without admiring the knowledge of the world, sagacity, and fine discrimination of its author.

“Duchess told me,” says Lord Malmesbury,[217] “that in 1762, when Lord Bute came in, it was in consequence of the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Rockingham going to the King, and saying that if his Majesty meant to be directed by Lord Bute’s counsels and advice, he had better bring him forward at once. This he (the King) did, and that when Lord Bute went out early in 1763, it was because he thought, by offering his resignation to the King, that his Majesty would press him to remain in and add to his power and influence; but the contrary arrived: and the Duchess said her mother and the King used to laugh together at the Rockinghams and Lord Bute having been the dupes of their cunning. The first lost their offices, which they wanted to keep, and the latter the office he was ambitious of retaining.”--Dec. 4th, 1794.

When the Duchess of Brunswick spoke of events which had happened thirty years back, strict accuracy of recollection could not be expected from her, and she is hardly entitled to belief in opposition to contemporary authorities. Lord Bute’s letters--his declarations to his friends--his known disposition--all combine in furnishing the strongest evidence that his wish to quit office was perfectly sincere. Letters are still extant in private repositories, amply sufficient to prove that for some time at least after his accession, the King placed unbounded confidence in Lord Bute; and the power exercised by that nobleman in providing for his dependants on his retirement, as well as the universal impression at the time, not only of the public but of the persons likely to possess the best information of what was passing at Court, betray no indication of any change in the King’s feelings. Indeed, whatever might have been his Majesty’s defects, inconstancy was not one of them.

II.

DR. THOMAS, BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.

(Vol. i. p. 75.)

He was the son of a Colonel in the Guards, who died poor. In early life, he had to struggle with many difficulties and disappointments. “By much exertion,” to use his own words, somewhat abridged, “he became a popular preacher in the City. He had a turn at St. Paul’s, when Bishop Hare was present. The Bishop liked his sermon, sent for him, heard him a second time, and then gave him a prebendal stall. Having thus got his foot on the ladder, he mounted rapidly.”[218] He was a man of sense and learning, and of unexceptionable character. He gained little influence or weight at Court; perhaps he had the prudence not to seek it. The King certainly liked him, and paid him frequent visits at Farnham Palace, after his promotion to Winchester. He died in 1781.

III.

GEORGE THE THIRD AND MR. MACKENZIE.

(Vol. ii. p. 175.)

Sir Gilbert Elliot’s account of the interviews between the King and his Ministers, just before the removal of Mr. Grenville, corresponds generally with Walpole’s narrative. It proves how reluctantly the King gave up Mr. Mackenzie. His Majesty, indeed, did not yield until he was driven to an unconditional surrender; and, after appealing in vain to Mr. Grenville’s sense of honour, in obliging him to depart from the engagement he had made to Mr. Mackenzie, he used these expressions, “I will not throw my kingdoms into confusion; you force me to break my word, and you must be responsible for the consequences.”

The indignation felt by his Majesty on this occasion, he took no pains to conceal. The Duke of Bedford’s remonstrance, strong as it may have been, certainly did not irritate the King to the extent that Walpole has stated, or Sir Gilbert Elliot would have commented on it severely, which he has not done. The only reply made by the King to the Duke’s demand of additional confidence was, “that the confidence necessary for the despatch of business, he had given them; as to favour, they had not taken the way to merit it.”[219]--E.

IV.

LIBEL ON THE KING OF SPAIN.

TO THE EDITOR OF “THE LONDON MAGAZINE.”

SIR,

A Letter in one of our public prints, reflecting upon his Catholic Majesty, being everywhere mentioned as the principal cause of an apprehended war with Spain, I have sent you that celebrated production for the entertainment of your readers, as it is extremely difficult to meet with a genuine copy, and as a spurious paper may possibly be foisted on the world without the interposition of _official_ authority.

I am, Sir, &c., A CLERK IN OFFICE.

_The imputed Libel on the King of Spain, said to be a principal Cause of the apprehended War, as it was complained of by the Spanish Ambassador to the Secretary of State._

TO THE GAZETTEER.

Your correspondent Seneca seems mightily pleased with the _bon-mot_ of G---- the Second. I agree with him, there is a good deal of humour in it, but a _bon-mot_, before it can be fully allowed as such, ought to be founded strictly in truth. If G---- the Second’s _bon-mot_ is relative only to the unwise of the House of B----k that were born before the commencement of the present century, or that were born in Germany, it may probably have truth for its foundation. But I would start even the Duke of C---- against any one of the three crowned heads of the Bourbon family. There seems to be a distinct climax amongst their three Bourbonian Majesties. The King of Sicily’s eldest brother, we all know, was put aside from the throne because he was an absolute, irrecoverable idiot; his present Majesty of Sicily is, I conceive, just one remove from his brother.

The next crowned head of the Bourbon family, I mean the King of Spain, may be allowed to be one remove and a half from his Sicilian Majesty, if weighed in the scale of intelligent or intellectual beings.

As a proof that the King of Spain is removed somewhat more than a degree and a half from downright idiotcy, I will relate a story of him, which will convince any fautor of monarchical government that his Most Catholic Majesty is endowed with sufficient understanding to govern the rich and powerful kingdom of Spain, or, indeed, any other kingdom in Christendom, according to the modern standard of Bourbonian kings.

Some few years ago, Charles the Third, his present Catholic Majesty, who is passionately fond of hunting, had accoutred himself as usual for the chase. It was in the month of January, and the weather at the extremest point of cold. The snow began to fall in such broad flakes that the poor King was absolutely prohibited the chase that day. The servants about his person were ordered to lay three or four dozen of watches before their royal master, in order that he might amuse himself with the delightful and instructive pastime of winding them up. It seems even this King affects and is allowed all the pageantry, ceremony, and parade of regal state. His servants, thus having brought him the watches, retired, and left him all alone. It is remarkable of this crowned head, that, like Cicero, he is _nunquam minus solus quam cum solus_; that is to say, he never perceives the least difference whatever between a solitude and a multitude.

I take the winding-up of thirty or forty watches to be an operation which must soon fatigue the mental faculties, and those faculties fatigued make room for the exertion of the bodily powers; accordingly, we are told that his Majesty, who is an enemy to idleness and inaction, the moment he had wound up his watches, immediately perceived by dint of instinct that the weather was extremely cold. To counter-operate the inclemency of this sharp season, what could his Majesty do? His servants had left his hunting-whip in the room with him; this room was hung with gobelin tapestry. The vivid colours and lively figure of an Arabian steed, ready saddled, was represented to the life. His Majesty, who is not easily deceived, immediately approaches the highly-coloured arras, attempts to mount his Bucephalus; the pictured stirrup fails to admit his kingly foot, and, O dire mishap! plump falls the Majesty of Spain on the resplendent wax-rubbed floor. Long did this mighty monarch, over whose wide-extended dominions the sun never ceases to shine, ponderate in his kingly breast, whether he should severely correct the resplendent wax-rubbed floor, or whether his hunting-whip would not fall with greater justice on the still prancing, proud Arabian steed. Wisely did Charles the Third distinguish between primary and secondary causes. The saddled palfrey, therefore, could not but appear to be the proper and immediate object of royal resentment. This weighty point determined, and Charles having thus acted the two parts of juryman and judge, there remained only the executioner’s part for him to perform. Instantly he sprung from off the floor, and with his three-thonged hunting-whip, during thirty-four minutes, two seconds, and a-half, with hand uplifted, _sublimi flagello_, flogged the unmoving, unmoved stately quadruped. At length, half-drowned and half-suffocated in his own unfragrant exudations, which copiously oozed out at every pore, the King, quite spent, again involuntarily rushed rumbling down upon the resplendent wax-rubbed floor. Alarmed at this unusual noise, the guard attendant in the outer room, breaking through all order and every etiquette of Madrid’s solemn stately-marching court, quickly rushed in the apartment royal, and found their monarch, Cyrus-like, weltering, if not in reeking gore, at least in reeking sweat.

The faculty, called in, all stunned aghast! and they themselves shivering with cold intense, much wonder whence the cause of all this burning heat, which thus unknown had overpowered their King. When straight, as rising from a trance and starting into life again, thus oracularly answered Charles the Third:

“Be not surprised that thus I sweat, for by this watch of Graham’s make, thirty-four minutes, two seconds, and a-half, have I been flogging with this whip, whose ponderous handle is of massy gold, that high-stomached quadruped, whose traitorous hoof hath twice extended my whole length upon this floor.” Much more spoke he, while every word was to the full as pertinent and wise.

From these outlines, characteristic of this crowned head, your readers will perceive I had strong reasons for saying that Charles the Third, King of the Two Indies, is rather more than a degree and a-half less unwise than his son, Ferdinand the Fourth, King of the Two Sicilies.

In my next letter I will draw the picture of that other crowned head of the Bourbon family, Louis the Fifteenth, King of Navarre.

ONE WHO PAINTS TO THE LIFE.

V.

EXTRACTS FROM THE MS. LIFE OF THE DUKE OF GRAFTON, BY HIMSELF, ILLUSTRATIVE OF WALPOLE’S MEMOIRS OF GEORGE THE THIRD, WITH SOME INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

Charles second Duke of Grafton, Lord Chamberlain and Knight of the Garter, grandson to Charles the Second, had three sons, all of whom died before him. Lord Augustus Fitzroy, the only one that left issue, was a captain of the navy; like his grandfather, the first Duke, he was a bold and active seaman, and having of course great interest, he seems to have been constantly employed. In one of his first cruises, happening to be on the American station, he fell in love with Miss Cosby, the daughter of Colonel Cosby, the Governor of New York, and married her, without waiting for his father’s consent, when he was only seventeen years old. His career was brief, for he died at Jamaica, in his twenty-fifth year, of a fever contracted at the unfortunate attack on Carthagena, where he had served on board the Orford man-of-war.

Lord Augustus left two sons; the younger entered the army, and having distinguished himself at Minden and other engagements during the seven years’ war, rose high in the army and held various posts at Court. He was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Southampton. He died in 1797. The present Lord Southampton is his grandson.

Augustus Henry, the eldest son, who eventually succeeded his grandfather as Duke of Grafton, was born in October 1735. After receiving his early education under Mr. Newcome at Hackney school, a seminary of high repute in that day, he was removed to Peterhouse, Cambridge, and remained a sufficient time at the University. He was committed by his grandfather to the care of a Genoese governor, and sent on what was called the _grand tour_. Pursuing the beaten track, he visited the south of France and Switzerland, wintered at Naples and at Geneva, and, returning by Germany and Holland to Paris, passed five months under the protection of the British Ambassador, Lord Albemarle, by whom he was introduced to all the gaiety, and, judging from the character of his patron, most probably the dissipation of the capital. He came back to England, on attaining his majority, to be elected member for Thetford, a borough which the vicinity of Euston placed under the control of his family, and took his seat in the House of Commons in the beginning of the session of 1756.

Lord Euston (as he had now become by the death of his uncle) had far from neglected the cultivation of his mind during his travels. Besides consulting the various historical works relating to the countries which he visited, it appears that he read Mr. Locke’s Treatises with great attention, and the principles of government there laid down guided him throughout his long life. If he departed from them it was from inadvertence, and not from design. Thus he acquired early a reputation for intelligence and accomplishments, which caused him on his arrival in England to be placed with Lord Huntingdon, who passed for the most promising young nobleman of his day, in the household then forming for the Prince of Wales, who had just attained his majority. The Prince wished him to be the Master of the Horse in preference to Lord Huntingdon, but the latter having the Duke of Newcastle’s interest, obtained the nomination, and Lord Euston, with some reluctance, accepted the inferior post of Lord of the Bedchamber. He held it only a few months. The service happened to be unusually constant, owing to the absence of some of his colleagues and the illness of others, and he found it so irksome, that, on finding Lord Bute indisposed to afford him any relief, he resigned. The Prince parted from him with marked reluctance, which was so little shared by Lord Bute, that the latter was believed to have made an unscrupulous use of his influence in order to effect the removal of a formidable competitor.

On the death of the Duke of Grafton in May, 1757, which was occasioned by a fall from his horse, Lord Euston succeeded to his title, as well as to the large possessions attached to it.

This elevation brought with it, as usual, the smiles and favours of the Ministry on a young nobleman whose rank and wealth, and evidently no common parts, seemed to destine him for an important share in the government of the country. The Duke, however, at first appeared to shew a decided preference for a retired life. He was eagerly addicted to field sports: and took equal pride and pleasure in his pack of hounds, which made Wakefield the resort of the keenest hunters of the day. Newmarket, too, had unfortunately strong attractions for him. Above all, he had a home which had not yet lost its charms; for in January, 1736, he had married the Hon. Miss Liddel, only child of Lord Ravensworth, with the fairest prospects of happiness. The beauty, grace, and talents of the Duchess have been celebrated by contemporary writers, nor was she less entitled to praise for higher qualities. She had a warm heart and was susceptible of strong attachment.[220] The Duke was fully capable of appreciating her merits; and there is no reason to suppose that the first years of their union were clouded by any serious differences.

In 1761, the Duke made a tour with the Duchess and his two elder children on the Continent; and it was only on his return in the following year, that he seems to have entertained serious thoughts of taking a more active part in politics.

EXTRACT I.

But to return to Mr. Grenville’s Ministry, which had been supported by great majorities (except on the debate on General Warrants) in both Houses, we can but remark that the vexatious and impolitic acts that were passed in the year 1764, and at the beginning of 1765, under these mighty majorities, were rapidly working out the greatest distresses and losses to the country.

The Administration met the Parliament in 1765, with great confidence in their own strength, and too little attention to those steps by which they had ascended to their power. The illness of the King during the session awakened the duty of Parliament to bring forward a Regency Bill, which was early suggested by the King himself. The Bill was accordingly brought into the House of Peers, and there passed, though so drawn as to exclude the Princess-Mother from being nominated Regent. In the Commons, this affront was taken off by the insertion of her Royal Highness’s name, and by the amendment carried up, and agreed to by the Lords; when the Ministers had the mortification of being obliged to submit to bear that affront which they had destined for others.

The evident intention of the King’s principal servants in this business, sealed their own overthrow; and as they had never been graciously considered in the closet, the consequences which would naturally follow were easily foreseen. Yet some were so blinded with ambition as not to be aware of the slippery ground on which the Ministry stood; and it was observed with surprise that Mr. Charles Townshend, in particular, a short time after, accepted the post of Paymaster, on the dismission of Lord Holland, who had, on the retreat of Lord Bute, given up the lead of the House of Commons to Mr. George Grenville.

My friends very justly reproached me for idling my time away in the country, during a great part of this session; without attending sufficiently to that duty in Parliament which became my station, and was expected from me. They, however, treated me with more attention than such conduct deserved; for I was by them constantly acquainted with all that was passing in the political world, and the Opposition had so little expectation of being called upon to take a part in Administration, unless under and by the recommendation of Mr. Pitt, that even when the coolness between the King and his servants was apparent to all mankind, to act under Mr. Pitt became the general voice, and was our principal wish.

It may not be amiss to insert Lord Rockingham’s letter, which brought me up to attend the Regency Bill, as it may serve to shew the light in which the Marquis and his friends considered the Bill on its introduction; and, afterwards, it will be proper to enter into some detail on many negotiations and occurrences that followed.

“April 24th, 1765.

“MY DEAR LORD,

“His Majesty came to the House to-day, to open the affair of the Regency Bill. I enclose to your Grace the speech. Our Address was only in general terms, to congratulate upon his Majesty’s recovery, and to thank him for his care and foresight, &c., in providing for the security of the country, &c., and to promise that we will proceed in this matter with all expedition. Nothing was said in our House by any of our friends. Lord Temple and Lord Lyttelton went away before the Address was moved. The Bill, I expect, will be brought in on Friday and read the first time; and it would not surprise me if a second reading and commitment should be pressed for that day or for Saturday.

“Upon so great a point I cannot refrain expressing my earnest wish that your Grace should not be absent. Your Grace will observe, by the Speech, that it is not intended that the Regent shall be appointed by the Act; but left to the King by instrument to nominate either the Queen or some _one of his Royal Family_. It is said, that by this description, a certain great lady is excluded: how far it is so, I am not certain. But supposing it was so, yet a fresh objection lies from the unusualness of the Regent not being nominally inserted. There are other parts expected in the Bill which will be liable to great objections, and I doubt not but that there will be some Lords who can and will make their objections.

“Lord Temple, yesterday, wished I would have sent an express to you for to-day; but the time was so short that your Grace would scarce have arrived in London before three o’clock this evening; and, indeed, I doubted whether anything would have been entered upon in the House today.

“I have more expectation on what may pass on Friday; but even on that I have hesitated for some hours whether to send to you or no, as I would not willingly occasion you a long journey to little purpose: the very chance of a debate deserves your attention, and in that light I will hope to apologize for my venturing to do what I now do.

“I am ever, &c. “ROCKINGHAM.”

“Grosvenor-Square, Wednesday Night, 12 o’Clock.”

Notwithstanding there had been many reports of dissensions among his Majesty’s Ministers and servants during the course of the whole winter, and particularly towards the conclusion of the session, no authentic accounts ever reached me of them, nor of the King’s displeasure at their conduct and behaviour to himself, till I received an express from the Duke of Cumberland. The letter, written by his Royal Highness, was brought to me at Wakefield Lodge, the 14th of May, at night. It contained an intimation of the King’s intention of _changing his Administration_, of taking in their places those whom his Royal Highness said both _he_ and _myself_ had wished in power, and adding a desire of talking _public as well as private affairs over with me_. This summons was instantly obeyed, and I got to Cumberland House even before the Duke was called. He sent for me to come immediately into his bedchamber, and opened the discourse by telling me that, though he was only commanded by the King to intimate his present dispositions to employ Mr. Pitt and the Lords Rockingham and Temple, yet he was confident that he should be forgiven if he stretched his commission by adding me to the number, saying at the same time, with his usual goodness, that he had that regard and opinion of me that he could not avoid wishing to hear my thoughts and inclinations, as well for myself as for my friends, on such an occasion. After expressions of this sort, the Duke told me that he had had some knowledge of his Majesty’s intentions before the Regency Bill was brought into our House; but, as he had endeavoured to dissuade the King from bringing it in at so short a notice, and when so little time was left to consider a matter of that importance, he had humbly begged to decline giving his Majesty his opinion of men, as he was sure those whom he might recommend would not undertake that Bill, so drawn, and pressed at such a moment.

The behaviour of the Ministers on that occasion, who wished to exclude the Princess Dowager, was such as neither answered their own design nor in any way turned to their honour, but put the finishing-stroke to the dislike the King had already conceived against them. After Lord Halifax had moved that the King might in that Bill be empowered to name as Regent any one of his Royal Family, descendant of George the Second, they thought their end was answered; but soon saw the meanness to which they were obliged to bend by assenting afterwards to the amendment proposed, and made to it in the Lower House, of allowing the Princess Dowager, by name, to be added to those who might be Regent. The defeat of their design was not the only consequence of their attempt, which was plainly seen through; and the Princess was naturally expected to resent this affront. Their servility in submitting was sufficient to add in the King’s mind a contempt of their characters to that disgust he already had for men who had brought an odium on his Government, and who had not, as he expressed, served him with decency in the closet.

The King, in this situation, and a few days before the intended prorogation of Parliament, sent for the Duke of Cumberland, asked his advice in forming such an Administration as would please his kingdom, and carry weight and credit both at home and abroad,--two points of which he was sensible the country as well as the Crown stood in need. The Duke, penetrated with this mark of the King’s favour, and more with the return of His Majesty’s confidence, expressed his sensibility of both; but added, that he was certain that the King would not, in any shape, mean that he should engage in an affair of such delicacy and real consequence in any manner derogatory to his honour. “Give me leave, sir,” said the Duke, “to observe, that I should hurt that honour, as well as lose the esteem of the world, if I was forming an Administration in which Lord Bute should have either weight or power.” After every assurance given by the King on this head, the Duke could no longer doubt of the sincerity of such a proposal. Much conversation then passed on the means of forming a new Administration, and the Duke left the King, commanded by him to think fully upon it. His Majesty had intimated, however, his _wish_ to have Lord Northumberland at the head of the Treasury,--a proposal of which, in the hurry of so many and important matters, I sincerely think the Duke did not immediately weigh the consequence; but he soon afterwards saw it, and had the satisfaction also to find that the King himself abandoned it when it was shewn to him to be inconsistent that so near a relation of Lord Bute’s should hold so great a post of business,--for, let his professions have been ever so satisfactory to those who were to act with him, the world would still deem the Treasury in the hands of a lieutenant of Lord Bute’s, and would consider such a step incompatible with all the former conduct and professions of those who were to form the new Administration.

This was the Duke’s account of what had passed: he then sounded my own inclinations, and whether I wished anything in such a change for myself, or what for my friends; he told me he both disapproved and much lamented that I was so much retired from the world, and not giving, in my rank, every assistance which my country had a right to require of me. I answered his Royal Highness, with many thanks for the favourable opinion he had of me, that I was very sensible that my power of serving my country he rated infinitely beyond my abilities; but that no one could in his heart wish it better, nor would go further to serve it; and that I did not mean to retire another year so much from the world as I had done. I expressed, next, that the small experience I had early in my life of a Court, had made me take a resolution which was every day strongly confirmed, that no inducement could lead me to take a Court employment; but that I was ready to undertake any one of business, provided I was satisfied that I could go through such an office with credit to myself and without prejudice to my country: that I owned my wish was to have my brother, Colonel Fitzroy Scudamore, and some other friends, who had been sufferers on my account, replaced, which would sufficiently shew my intentions, and to be left myself to applaud and forwardly to support the measures which I was confident would be pursued by an _honourable Administration_. Indeed, such appeared to me, and does still, the way in which I could have been of the most use. The lower posts of business were not fit for the rank I stood in, nor were the greater more fit for the total inexperience I had of any office. Whereas, the support of a man who was looked upon as steady in his conduct, and not famed for supporting all Administrations, would have given weight to a cause, if I could have been allowed to have served it without being in place.

The Duke was not satisfied with my answer, and proposed and pressed me to be at the head of the Board of Trade, which I begged to decline, looking upon it in a very different light from what I found his Royal Highness did, as I really thought it as difficult a post as any whatever. As this transaction was not to transpire at that time, I asked the Duke’s leave to return into the country again that very day, which I did. I should have mentioned before, that whilst I was with the Duke, he asked me this question,--whether I thought an Administration could be formed (principally out of the minority) without Mr. Pitt? On my assuring him that my opinion was, that nothing so formed could be stable, he said, he hoped there was every reason to think he would engage, as Lord Albemarle had been with him the day before, and that his Lordship thought he saw it in a favourable light.

With these hopes I left London, and in a few days afterwards had the mortification to see them blasted, by receiving a fresh messenger from the Duke of Cumberland, desiring my immediate attendance in London. A letter, written by Lord Albemarle by the Duke’s order, dated at night, May 22nd, brought me this account in words to this effect,--that the Duke had been five hours with Mr. Pitt at Hayes, without prevailing on him to take a part; that the King was the next morning to answer some _questions_, to be put to him by his present Ministers, in one of which his Royal Highness was personally concerned, and that the Duke desired my support on the occasion. Lord Albemarle also adds, that the King had been most insolently treated by his Ministers, and shamefully abandoned by those who should have profited by this occasion to serve their King and country. On receiving this account, my first step was to go instantly to receive his Royal Highness’s commands, whom I found just going to Court to know the King’s determination. He told me, however, in a few words, the advice he had given to the King the night before, and referred me to Lord Albemarle for the whole of what had passed since I last waited upon him, commanding me also to wait upon him on his return from St. James’s, and to dine with him. Lord Albemarle’s account tallied so exactly with what the Duke afterwards related to me, that it is needless to repeat both. His Royal Highness said, that finding Lord Temple cooler on the subject than he expected, and that Mr. Pitt was also less forward since Lord Temple’s arrival in London, he had explained to the King the absolute necessity there was of every object being removed that might prevent Mr. Pitt’s taking a part, and hoping even to have his Majesty’s assurance that many measures might be redressed, and some wholly broken through, to make it more satisfactory to Mr. Pitt on entering upon his Ministry.

On the preceding Saturday, the King had sent for his Royal Highness, and had told him, in the kindest terms and most explicit words, that he put himself wholly, in this affair, into his hands; that he saw plainly the propriety of his advice. For which reason he ordered him to go the next morning to Mr. Pitt, with full powers from him to treat with Mr. Pitt, and to come into the constitutional steps he had before mentioned as essential to the country; as also, that his Majesty was not backward to lean to his foreign politics, if he (Mr. Pitt) should think it most beneficial, when he saw how affairs then stood. His Royal Highness told me that he had patience to attend to very long discourses, which Mr. Pitt held on the subject, in which the Duke declared he could not always follow him: as he was sometimes speaking of himself as already the acting Minister, and then would turn about by showing how impossible it was for him ever to be in an employment of such a nature, and always would end by observing that if such and such measures were pursued, he would _applaud_ them loudly from whatever men they came. Mr. Pitt also told his Royal Highness, that if an Administration went in on such ground as he had laid down, he would _exhort_ his friends--nay, his brothers, to accept; but that he doubted much whether the latter (meaning Lord Temple and J. Grenville) would.

Mr. Pitt’s plan abroad was, for a close union with the northern Courts of Germany, together with Russia, to balance the Bourbon alliance, to which the Duke gave the answer I before mentioned, and that the King was ready to support Mr. Pitt in any alliance that he should judge the most valid to check any attempts that might arise from the family compact of the House of Bourbon. At home, Mr. Pitt lamented (and in which the Duke most sincerely joined) the infringement on our constitution in the affair of the Warrants, left still undecided, though twice before Parliament; the army degraded, as well as our liberties struck at, by the dismission of officers who had taken the part in Parliament which their consciences prompted them to, so much to their honour, though contrary to their interest; and in addition to these, should be taken into consideration the propriety of rewarding the uprightness of Lord Chief Justice Pratt at such a crisis, by giving him a peerage. To Mr. Pitt’s question to the Duke, whether the Great Seal was promised to Mr. Charles Yorke? his Royal Highness could only answer, that he could not say how far the King had engaged himself with that gentleman. The Duke did not tell me what I afterwards heard from Mr. Pitt, that the Duke had that day mentioned it to be the King’s _wish_ to have Lord Northumberland at the head of the Treasury. If it was mentioned, it is very clear that it was almost as soon dropped; and I am confident that it was not, that day, the Duke’s desire any more than that of Mr. Pitt. In which case, I think it was possible that it was named more to feel Mr. Pitt’s notion or affections to that quarter, or perhaps, by a policy very unnecessary with so great a man, thinking it might be a concession that would please, when he found that Lord Temple would be agreeable to the King in that office. His Royal Highness, often, as he told me, pressed Mr. Pitt to chalk out to the King a list of such as he would wish to fill all the posts of business, which, the Duke answered for, the King would instantly adopt. This was to no purpose; and the Duke was obliged to return to Richmond with the unpleasant account of his ill success.

The day following, the Duke, by his Majesty’s command, was employed in endeavouring to form an Administration without Mr. Pitt, and to that end Lord Lyttelton was sounded, to be placed at the head of the Treasury, with Mr. C. Townshend as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These gentlemen both thought the ground too weak to stand long upon, and wished to decline it. The latter of them accepted the Pay Office, two days after, under the old Ministry. Many different posts were thought of and proposed for me, during this _arrangement_, but none of them ever came to my ears till my coming to London, as it was unnecessary I should know of them till the greater posts were fixed on and accepted. The King, on the day following, disappointed of this plan also, with his present Ministry at the door of the closet, ready to resign, was under a difficulty, and in such a situation that he knew not which way to turn. The Duke’s advice then was, as the lesser evil of the two, to call in his old Administration rather than to leave the country without Ministers while the town was in a tumult, raised against the Duke of Bedford by the weavers, and the House of Lords passing the most strange as well as violent resolutions.

On the Wednesday morning Mr. Grenville, in the name of the rest, acquainted the King that, before they should again undertake his affairs, they must lay before him some questions to be answered by his Majesty; on which the King, taking him up, said, “_Terms_, I suppose you mean, sir; what are they?” Mr. Grenville answered, that they should expect further assurance that Lord Bute should never meddle in the State affairs, of whatsoever sort; that Mr. Mackenzie (his brother) should be dismissed from his employment; that Lord Holland should also meet with the same treatment; that Lord Weymouth should be named Lord-Lieutenant to Ireland, and that Lord Granby should be appointed Commander-in-Chief. He then left the King, from whom they were to have their answer the next day. Mr. G. Grenville, on that day also, took the lead in the name of the rest; and the King, advised by the Duke of Cumberland, except in that point relating to himself, told them he would never give up the possibility of employing his uncle on an emergency, which he should do if he put any one in the post of Commander-in-Chief; that he assented to the others, though against his opinion; and that he supposed they would not press him to break his word, which he had given to Mr. Mackenzie; but that he was ready to give up the management of the Scotch affairs, if they would leave him in as Privy Seal to that kingdom. On their still insisting on his total dismission, the King was obliged to assent; and then, by their friends, they were considered as much stronger than they ever had been.

This affair being thus concluded, after having paid my duty at the King’s levee, I returned again into the country, and soon waited upon his Royal Highness, at Windsor Lodge, during the races. The Duke of Cumberland was over at Hayes the day after I went back to Wakefield Lodge; and though Mr. Pitt had two long conferences, in consequence, with the King, and in the latter on Saturday, May the 19th, had expectation that a thorough change would have taken place, according to the fullest of our wishes. Our hopes, however, were strangely thwarted by the disinclination of Lord Temple, who made such use of the mention of the Earl of Northumberland for the Treasury, as to stagger Mr. Pitt himself, as I conjectured. But the cause of the failure of this negotiation was imputed differently, according as the partialities and prejudices of political men led them to represent it: that no obstacle arose from his Majesty, I am perfectly assured. Those with whom I chiefly consorted were much inclined to blame Mr. Pitt, who, as they said, had _carte blanche_ from the King. Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, would not allow that this was the case; and he observed that the expression itself was unfit to be used on such an occasion; and Mr. J. Grenville had assured my brother that Mr. Pitt was much hurt to find the latter offer, _to which he had acceded_, broken off before Mr. Pitt had returned his answer. Mr. J. Grenville added, that the reconciliation with George Grenville did not regard the public.

In the meanwhile, I received a letter from my brother, who mentioned the conversation alluded to with Mr. J. Grenville, in which that gentleman had also declared his own thoughts on the late negotiation, adding, that Mr. Pitt desired much an opportunity of explaining the whole to me. My brother pressed me strongly from himself, as well as from Mr. Meynell and other of my friends, to see Mr. Pitt as soon as possible, in order that I might be able to clear up and put a stop to divisions that this whole affair had made among friends eager to defend the part those to whom they were most attached had taken in it. I returned for answer to my brother, that I must have some plainer certainty of such a wish of Mr. Pitt’s, and that I would desire him to go to Hayes to know whether the case was as represented, and to lay before him my thoughts of his conduct on the occasion, which, partial as I was to him, even to me appeared unfathomable, and to want great explanation: I even offered, in case of anything having been misunderstood, that I should be too happy to be thought worthy of being employed by him, either to get explained or renewed a measure that appeared to me the only one by which our King and country could attain their ancient glory. Immediately on the receipt of my letter, my brother went to Hayes, and having heard from Mr. Pitt the whole relation, he transmitted the chief purport to me that same evening in the following letters.

“London, Wednesday, May 29.

“DEAR BROTHER,

“At the end of my conversation with Mr. Pitt, I asked if I should write word to you that he was resolved not to renew the negotiation; he said, _Resolved_ was a _large_ word, and desired I would express myself thus: ‘_Mr. Pitt’s determination was final, and the negotiation is at an end_.’ These are his own words. As to your coming, he shall be extremely happy to have the honour of seeing you, but would be ashamed to bring you to town for so little an object; yet, if you should come to London, would not only be proud to see you at Hayes, and talk things over, but, if he could walk on foot to London, and pay his respects to you, he would do it. Having said this, at your own leisure, any time within a week or so, if you come to London, he should think himself happy to see you at Hayes.

I am, &c., “CHARLES FITZROY.”

* * * * *

(Without date.)

“DEAR BROTHER,

“My other is a formal answer to my commission; this is a private account of my conversation at Hayes, as near as I can recollect the different heads, and shorter in substance. Mr. Pitt two hours incessant talking. It is quite private between us--I mean you and myself. 1st, I found he had not been acquainted with J. Grenville’s conversation with me; upon my telling it to him _in part_, he said, it might have come from Lord Temple, but that the different periods were not exactly stated. He then went through every part of what had passed, and made his remarks with several refinements upon _manner_ and _words_, and often declared his unwillingness to engage again in office. He rested the whole objections of this negotiation upon the transactions, opening with the King’s wish to have Lord Northumberland at the head of the Treasury: at the same time he expressed that he, _Mr. Pitt_, did not desire Lord Temple should be there; but that he thought the whole transaction a phantom, and could never have been intended serious. He declared it impossible for him and his Royal Highness to talk a different language as to fact, but that nothing like _carte blanche_ was ever hinted. (N.B.--he thinks that an improper phrase, as it sounds like capitulating.) He talked much of Revolution, families _personally_ from their weight but unconnected and under no banner. For all _that_ was factious. He mentioned the great popular points: restitution of officers, privileges, &c., &c., change of system of politics, both domestic and foreign; said everything you would like, and resolved nothing but retirement. I must add the highest commendations of his Royal Highness, his judgment, abilities, integrity, &c., &c.; but said, that ‘no man in England but himself would have brought such terms,--no, not even Lord Bute.’ He left me totally in the dark, further than I could easily distinguish he thinks that it was not meant to have it _his_ Administration.

“For God’s sake, see him! it must not be to-morrow, as he has his reconciling dinner with George Grenville: _this he told me_. The Duke of Cumberland goes to the birthday, so you may come on Monday, if you will, to see Mr. Pitt, and take the birthday on Tuesday, if you like it. Adieu.

Yours, “C. F. R.”

It was not to be wondered at, if his Majesty, under these circumstances, was led to try every practical means by which he could form an Administration capable of relieving him from the irksome situation in which he stood with his present servants. Among others, I was myself commanded by the King, through the Duke of Cumberland, to wait on Mr. Pitt at Hayes, and to bear to him his Majesty’s wishes to be informed what steps would be the fittest for his Majesty to take in order to constitute an Administration of which Mr. Pitt was to be the head, and which might, through a confidence of the principles and abilities of the other Ministers, give satisfaction to his people. His Royal Highness told me, that if I had any doubt as to the authority, I might receive it from the King himself.

I was young and unsuspicious, and, moreover, perfectly relied on the honour of those who were then present at this conference at Windsor Great Lodge, when the King’s commands were communicated to me; and I desired no other authority. Since that time, experience would probably have stopped me from undertaking a commission so critical, and, I may add, so hazardous; yet I received the satisfactory declaration from all parties, that I had discharged my commission faithfully.

Mr. Pitt received me with the usual kindness which I had constantly met with from him ever since he first knew me at Stowe, when I was a boy from school; indeed, his obliging attention had been daily increasing. He appeared to be much pleased with the subject of the message I brought. He talked over many weighty political considerations and situations in a very open manner; some of which were to be considered as going no further than my own breast. The rest I was desired to report. In a visit of more than two hours, he concluded, that with every sense of duty to his Majesty for his obliging condescension, he could not, but to the King himself, state his views, and what would be his advice for the King’s dignity and the public welfare.

Mr. Pitt did see the King in a day or two after this, and again on June the 22nd. But, alas! it will appear by the following letters, that he was much disappointed in the warm expectation he had formed.

“Pall Mall, Saturday, June 22d, 1765.

“MY LORD,

“Having had an audience again to-day of his Majesty at the Queen’s house, I find myself under a necessity of expressing my extreme desire to have the honour of a conversation with your Grace. Did my shattered health permit, I would have had the pleasure of being my own messenger to Wakefield Lodge; as it is, I trust your Grace will, in consideration of my sincere respect and attachment, pardon the great liberty I take in desiring that your Grace would take the trouble of a journey to town. I am going to sleep at Hayes, where I find it necessary for me to be, as much as may be, for the air; and shall be proud and happy to have the honour of waiting on your Grace, at my return to London, Monday night, in case you should be then arrived,--or some time on Tuesday next. A letter would but ill convey what I have to impart; I therefore defer entering into matter till I have the satisfaction of meeting; and will only say, that I think the Royal dispositions are most propitious to the wishes of the public, with regard to _measures_ most likely to spread satisfaction. When your Grace arrives, you will hear with your own ears, and see with your own eyes, which will be better than any lights I can convey. I have the honour to be, with perfect truth and respect,

“Your Grace’s most obedient and most humble servant, WILLIAM PITT.”

* * * * *

“Hayes, Tuesday Evening.

“MY LORD,

“It is with extreme concern that I am to acquaint your Grace that Lord Temple declines to take the Treasury. This unfortunate event wholly disables me from undertaking that part which my zeal, under all the weight of infirmities, had determined me to attempt. As in this crisis I imagine your Grace will judge proper to come to town, I trust you will pardon the trouble of this line, and believe me, with true respect and attachment,

“Your Grace’s most faithful, and Most obedient humble Servant, WILLIAM PITT.”

Despairing of receiving Mr. Pitt’s assistance at our head, a new plan for establishing a Ministry was proposed to his Majesty by his Royal Highness, and accepted; several, with myself, understanding that it came forward with the full declaration of our desire to receive Mr. Pitt at our head, _whenever_ he should see the situation of affairs to be such as to allow him to take that part. My concern afterwards was great, when I found, before the conclusion of our first session, that this idea was already vanished from the minds of some of my colleagues. I always understood this to be the ground on which I engaged, and it will be seen that I adhered to my own resolution to the last.

When the principal line of ministerial departments was settled between his Majesty and his Royal Highness, a considerable number of the leading men in both Houses were invited to a great dinner, at whose house I do not exactly recollect, where the great officers were to be fixed on, as much as possible to the general satisfaction of the meeting as to the person himself. A real difficulty, however, arose concerning the Treasury; for the delicacy of Lord Rockingham kept him back for some time from accepting that post, to which the Duke of Newcastle was giving up the claim reluctantly, though most of his own friends felt that his advanced age rendered him inadequate to fill it. After long resistance, the Marquis yielded; and the other offices were nearly agreed upon, as we kissed hands for them on the 10th of July.

EXTRACT II.

The internal state of the country was really alarming; and from my situation I had more cause to feel it than any other man. But a measure at this time adopted by a majority of the King’s servants gave me still more apprehension, considering it to be big with more mischief; for, contrary to my proposal of including the articles of teas, together with all the other trifling objects of taxation, to be repealed on the opening of the next session, it was decided that the teas were still to remain taxed as before, though contrary to the declared opinions of Lord Camden, Lord Granby, General Conway, and myself. Sir Edward Hawke was absent through illness: otherwise I think he would have agreed with those who voted for including the teas in the repeal. But this was not all; and considering what important consequences this very decision led to, there is no minute part of it on which you should not be informed.

When we had delivered _seriatim_ our opinions, the minute, as is usual, was taken down by Lord Hillsborough; and in that part where the intentions of the King’s servants were to be communicated by a circular letter to all the Governors in America, the majority allowed the first penned minute of Lord Hillsborough to be amended by words as kind and lenient as could be proposed by some of us, and not without encouraging expressions which were too evidently displeasing to his Lordship. The quick departure of the packet carried off Lord Hillsborough’s circular letter before it had got into circulation, and we were persuaded, on reading the dispatch attentively, that it was not in the words nor form of the last correction agreed to by the Cabinet. Thus it was evident to us, who were overruled in the Cabinet, that the parts of the minute which might be soothing to the Colonies were wholly omitted. Lord Camden, in particular, much offended at this proceeding, mentioned the circumstance to me, and immediately charged Lord Hillsborough with the omission, and insisted on seeing the minute from which the circular letter ought to have been drawn. Lord Hillsborough expressed his sorrow that the packet was sailed; but that he was certain that the circular was drawn conformably to the minute.

The present Lord Camden gave me leave to copy the following papers, which passed between his father and Lord Hillsborough on this occasion, and which I had particularly desired his Lordship to search for from among his father’s papers.

(Copy.)

From Lord Chancellor (Camden) to the Earl of Hillsborough, Secretary for the American Department.

“Lord Chancellor presents his compliments to Lord Hillsborough, and begs leave to know whether the Circular Letter to the Governors in America, explaining the conduct of the King’s servants in respect to the dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies, is despatched or not; because Lord Chancellor has material objections to the draught which came first to his hands the day before yesterday.”

“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, June 9, 1769.”

* * * * *

(Copy.)

“Lord Hillsborough presents his compliments to Lord Chancellor, and is sorry the Circular Letter has been long despatched. He wrote and sent it immediately after the Cabinet; nor can he conceive what can be his Lordship’s objections to it, as it is exactly conformable to the minute, and as near as possible in the same words.”

“Hanover Square, June 9, 1769.”

* * * * *

(Copy.)

“Lord Hillsborough, conceiving that Lord Chancellor means to have the rough draught of the Minute of Cabinet taken the first of May, he spent half the day in looking for it, and cannot find it, although he supposes he still has it; but having the fair draught which he communicated to his Lordship and the other Lords, and laid before the King, and which is conformable to the rough draught, he has not attended to the preservation of the latter. Enclosed he has the honour to send a copy of the Minute No. 1, and also a copy of the Circular Letter No. 2, which he hopes Lord Chancellor upon reconsideration will approve.”

“Hanover Square, Saturday night.”

* * * * *

(Copy.)

Lord Chancellor to Lord Hillsborough. No date,--but either a day or two after the preceding _necessarily_.

“MY LORD,

“I had the honour of receiving your Lordship’s note with copies of the Minute and the Circular Letter, and am sorry to say that I cannot bring myself to approve the Letter, though I have considered and considered it with the utmost attention.

“I wish your Lordship had not mislaid the original Minute; however, I do not remember the first sentence of the fair draught to have been part of that original, and so I told your Lordship when you were pleased to show me the draught a day or two after the meeting. All that I mean to observe to your Lordship upon that subject is, that this sentence was not a part of the original Minute, nor in my poor judgment necessary to have been made a part of it.

“But the principal objection, wherein I possibly may be mistaken, is to the Letter, which ought to have been founded on the Minute, and it is this, that the Letter does not communicate that opinion which is expressed in the second paragraph of the Minute, and which the Secretary of State is authorized to impart both by his conversation and correspondence.

“The communication of that opinion was the measure; if that has not been made, the measure has not been pursued, and therefore your Lordship will forgive me for saying, that though I am responsible for the Minute as it was taken down, I am not for the Letter.

“I confess that I do not expect this Letter will give much satisfaction to America; perhaps the Minute might: but as the opportunity of trying what effect that might have produced is lost, I can only say that I am sorry it was not in my power to submit my sentiments to your Lordship before the Letter was sent.”

* * * * *

(No. 1.)

“At a meeting of the King’s servants at Lord Weymouth’s office, 1st May, 1769.

Present,

Lord Chancellor. Duke of Grafton. Lord Rochford. Lord North. Lord President. Lord Granby. Lord Weymouth. General Conway. Lord Hillsborough.

“It is the unanimous opinion of the Lords present to submit to his Majesty, as their advice, that no measure should be taken which can any way derogate from the legislative authority of Great Britain over the Colonies; but that the Secretary of State in his correspondence and conversation be permitted to state it as the opinion of the King’s servants, that it is by no means the intention of Administration, nor do they think it expedient or for the interest of Great Britain or America, to propose or consent to the laying any further taxes upon America for the purpose of raising a revenue; and that it is at present their intention to propose in the next session of Parliament to take off the duties upon paper, glass, and colours imported into America, upon consideration of such duties having been laid contrary to the true principles of commerce.”

* * * * *

(No. 2.)

CIRCULAR.

“Whitehall, May 13, 1769.

“SIR,

“Inclosed I send you the gracious speech made by the King to his Parliament at the close of the session on Tuesday last.

“What his Majesty is pleased to say, in relation to the measures which have been pursued in North America, will not escape your notice, as the satisfaction his Majesty expresses in the approbation his Parliament has given to them, and the assurance of their firm support in the prosecution of them, together with his royal opinion of the great advantages that will probably accrue from the concurrence of every branch of the legislature in the resolution of maintaining a due execution of the laws, cannot fail to produce the most salutary effects. From hence it will be understood that the whole legislature concur in the opinion adopted by his Majesty’s servants, that no measure ought to be taken which can any way derogate from the legislative authority of Great Britain over the Colonies; but I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary from men with factious and seditious views, that his Majesty’s present Administration have at no time entertained a design to propose to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America for the purpose of raising a revenue, and that it is at present their intention to propose, in the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and colours, upon consideration of such duties having been laid contrary to the true principles of commerce.

“These, sir, have always been, and still are, the sentiments of his Majesty’s present servants, and the principles by which their conduct in respect to America have been governed; and his Majesty relies upon your prudence and fidelity for such an explanation of his measures as may tend to remove the prejudices which have been excited by the misrepresentations of those who are enemies to the peace of Great Britain and her Colonies, and to re-establish that mutual confidence and affection upon which the safety and glory of the British empire depend.

“I am, &c., (Signed) “HILLSBOROUGH.”

* * * * *

This unfortunate and unwarrantable Letter (to give it no harsher epithet) of Lord Hillsborough to the Governors in the different Colonies, was, many years after, the subject of discourse between Lord Camden and myself. This Circular was calculated to do all mischief, when our real Minute might have paved the way to some good. Besides many other objectionable points, how could Lord Hillsborough venture to assert in the first line of this Letter the word _unanimous_? for he could not have so soon forgotten that there was but one single voice for the measure more than was the number of those who were against it.

You will readily imagine that on this defeat in the Cabinet I considered myself no longer possessed of that weight which had been allowed to me before in these meetings, especially as the proposal was on a matter of finance, more particularly belonging to my department. My resolution was soon taken to withdraw myself from my office, which was become very uncomfortable and irksome to me, on the first favourable opportunity that offered. The resistance to any further steps calculated to alienate the Colonies would probably have furnished good ground for my retreat; but, while I remained in office, none was proposed. I had occasion, however, to look about me, and to tread my way with more wary steps than I had hitherto done. It led me plainly to perceive that from the time of Lord Camden’s altercation with Lord Hillsborough, the former Minister had sunk much in the royal estimation. As to myself, there was no alteration in his Majesty’s condescending goodness; but though this was not diminished, I was sensible that his Majesty was more forward to dictate his will to me, than to inquire first my opinion on any measure that was to be considered, as had been his usual practice. My tame submission to be overruled in Cabinet might give the King’s friends an idea that I might be more pliant, and rest my favour on their support. But they knew me little who thus judged of my temper; nor did they imagine that an honourable liberation from the Treasury was of all others the thought on which I indulged my hope. To have offered to resign while the spirit of petitioning was so violent in many counties, would have been highly blameable in me; for the petitions were directed against the Administration and the Parliament, which had supported us. Other causes brought forward my resignation, and at a time when the sting of these petitions was no longer so much to be feared.

On the 24th of June, 1769, I married Elizabeth, third daughter of Sir Richard and Lady Mary Wrottesley, whose merit as a wife, tenderness and affection as a mother of a numerous family, and exemplary conduct through life, need not be related to you. In a week or ten days after I went from Woburn, accompanied by the Duke of Bedford, to the installation at Cambridge, where, in the preceding year, on the death of the Duke of Newcastle, the University had done me the honour of electing me as Chancellor to succeed his Grace. That ceremony being over, I returned to London, where I first heard that Lord Chatham was so well recovered as to be expected to attend the King’s next levee. Lord Camden had seen him, and, I think, the day before his appearing mentioned to me Lord Chatham’s intention. Lord Camden informed me that he was far from being well pleased, but did not enter into particulars, except that he considered my marriage to be quite political; and it was without effect that Lord Chancellor laboured to assure him that it was otherwise, and that he could answer that I was as desirous as ever of seeing his Lordship again taking the lead in the King’s Administration.

This neglect on the part of Lord Chatham piqued me much. I had surely a claim to some notice on his recovery, when at his earnest solicitation I embarked in an arduous post when he was incapable of business of any sort; and if Lord Chatham wished to receive the state of political matters, I hope that it is not saying too much that he ought to have requested it of me. He chose the contrary; and even in the King’s outer-room, where we met before the levee, when I went up to him with civility and ease, he received me with cold politeness; and from St. James’s called and left his name at my door.

On my returning home I took down a minute of this occurrence of the day, which I have preserved. It runs thus:--

“July 7, 1769.

“Lord Chatham waited on the King for the first time since his long confinement, was graciously received at the levee, and was desired to stay after it was over, when the King sent for him into the closet. His Majesty took the opportunity of assuring him how much he was concerned that the ill state of his health had been the occasion of his quitting the King’s service. His Lordship answered, that his Majesty must feel that in his infirm state he must have stood under the most embarrassing difficulties, holding an office of such consequence, and unable to give his approbation to measures that he thought salutary, or his dissent to those which appeared to him to have another tendency; that he was unwilling to go into particulars; yet he could not think that one especially had been managed in the manner it might have been, for if it had been despised thoroughly at the outset, it never could have been attended with the disagreeable consequences which have happened, but that it was too late now to look back.

“The Indian transaction was also found fault with. His Lordship, besides, observed, that their general courts were got upon the worst of footings, exercising the conduct of little parliaments; that he wondered that the inspectors were not sent to three different places. There were also other observations on the head of India. His Lordship added, that he doubted whether his health would ever again allow him to attend Parliament; but if it did, and if he should give his dissent to any measure, that his Majesty would be indulgent enough to believe that it would not arise from any personal consideration; for, he protested to his Majesty, as Lord Chatham, he had not a tittle to find fault with in the conduct of any one individual, and that his Majesty might be assured that it could not arise from ambition, as he felt so strongly the weak state from which he was recovering, and which might daily threaten him, that office, therefore, of any sort could no longer be desireable to him.”

* * * * *

From this time until the meeting of Parliament I saw no more of Lord Chatham. His suspicions of me were probably too firmly rooted to be removed by Lord Camden’s assurances that they were groundless. His Lordship desired no further interview; and I had such a sense of the unkindness and injustice of such a treatment, when I thought that I had a claim for the most friendly, that I was not disposed to seek any explanation.

Lord Camden and myself, unfortunately, saw less of each other than in other summers; both of us profiting, by a retreat into the country, of the leisure which a recess from Chancery and Treasury business offered. The affair of petitions was becoming every day more serious, increasing in number; the consequences were ever uppermost in my thoughts. Mr. Stonehewer and a few friends were with us at Wakefield Lodge; with them I conversed much on all that I foresaw of mischief from these intemperate petitions, and I shall lay before you the copy, which I have in Mr. Stonehewer’s hand-writing, of the letter which I wrote, wishing to consult Lord Camden, the lawyer as well as the friend from whom I might expect the soundest advice, well convinced that his to me came on all occasions from the sincerity of his heart.

“Wakefield Lodge, August 29, 1769.

“MY DEAR LORD,

“I have made use of the leisure which the Treasury holidays have given me to revolve over here in quiet such points as our duty seemed to call upon us, as public men, most to give attention to. The petitions, I must say, have greatly engrossed and puzzled my thoughts; indeed, the conduct on this strange occasion, which has been stirred up by the envy and malice of Opposition, without a single thought on its pernicious consequences hereafter, appears to me to be most delicate indeed.

“I am alarmed, I own to your Lordship, at the mischief that may from this source, before it is long, arise to this constitution, which those who are now in office will heartily, I am convinced, join in endeavours to deliver down to their successors as pure as they received it. No trouble will stop us in this purpose, and most essential part our duty; nor shall we be afraid to wade through the rage of popular clamour for the moment, if on consideration any effort of that sort shall appear to be necessary. I am not easy in my mind, nor can I be so until I know at bottom what are the penalties these gentlemen who have been the promoters of these steps have made themselves liable to, or how far they are criminal. When we have this from authority the King’s servants will consider the _State part_ of it, how far the petitions themselves can be allowed to sleep without some notice, having been delivered to, and of course known to, the Crown,--especially as the matter of these petitions is defamatory of Parliament itself, and may perhaps prove to be a violation of the constitution. I profess to your Lordship openly, that I do not see how they can lie wholly locked up in an office, and no farther produced or mentioned.

“My thoughts have been running on this business both day and night. I wish but to do right, and shall never be afraid to meet difficulty on _good ground_; and some there must be if an active measure is resolved upon: but believe me, that great part of that vanishes when a measure, of itself right, is known to be cordially approved of and determined by the King’s principal servants. If nothing is to be done, and that it shall be thought most judicious to let the consideration wholly drop, for God’s sake let it not be before every point relating to it shall have been maturely weighed by us! Let it not be said that innovations of a dangerous tendency, injurious to Parliament and dangerous to the constitution, have been established in these times, because the Ministers have not attended to the nature of them, or have been too inactive to resist such wicked measures.

“This subject is too much and too closely connected with the laws, and indeed with the very being, in my opinion, of this constitution, for me not to want the advice and assistance of those who love it as much as myself, and who know it so infinitely more. It was a disappointment to me not to meet your Lordship during the four days of last week which I passed in London. My mind was too full for me not to trouble you with this letter. Be so good as to give me your thoughts on the _present state_ of this weighty business; they will greatly relieve mine, although they can only be your thoughts on the _present_ state of it, as I feel that it is not prepared nor digested enough to be yet decided upon. The Middlesex and the City petitions your Lordship has seen; Surrey has now gone to the grievances only of the right of election violated, as they complain. One will come from Worcester, and in Wiltshire the _pardon of the chairman_ is added,--the petition mostly encouraged by our old friends Popham and Beckford; others will probably come.

“The opinion in form of the King’s servants will of course be taken, if any proceeding is to be entered upon. I have desired in my case a person under me to be collecting the different facts and proofs; if not wanted by them, they will be satisfactory to myself.

“You know the difficulties we have had about the Board of Trade Council; I will submit this arrangement to you, and if your Lordship approves of it, I think that I can bring the _whole_ about if I have your leave to _try_. Mr. Justice Clive’s infirmities render it indispensable for the King to make him the usual provision on retiring; he might even be told that some gentlemen who have felt the inconvenience of it have determined to move in Parliament what would be most disagreeable to him, and would in fact reflect on us. Indeed, my dear Lord, I hear from all quarters the necessity of this. Moreton might succeed him; Thurlow to him; and our friend Jackson come to the post of all others I most wish to see him in. Will you allow me to set about it? It requires some management, but I think if left to myself I shall succeed.

“I have already made this too long a letter to trouble your Lordship with further particulars on this second subject.

“I have the honour to be, &c., GRAFTON.

“P.S.--I shall be sincerely rejoiced to hear the little man is recovered.”

* * * * *

Though I have inserted this letter of mine, I should certainly wish to correct some sentiments therein expressed. You will partake in my disappointment, I am confident, when I acquaint you that I have no opinion to lay before you from this eminent and constitutional lawyer, whose sentiments on so peculiar a state of things, as well as his advice how to proceed upon them, would have been so satisfactory to myself at the time, and to the world in every age. But to deliver, on recollection only, the sentiments of a man of his high character and authority on so serious a subject, would be in me arrogant, and little suited to that respect I shall ever attach to the memory of my friend.

Lord Camden’s answer to my letter was in these words:--

“MY DEAR LORD,

“I have the honour of your Grace’s letter, which I have read over, and considered with my best attention; but the subject being new and unexpected, I am not able at present to form any opinion till I have given it a further consideration; and I should be unwilling to commit my crude thoughts to paper, which indeed would not be worth your Grace’s perusal, and which perhaps I might change myself upon second thoughts. As I am not honoured with any intercourse with any of the King’s servants, except now and then with your Grace, I should be very glad to have a personal interview with your Grace, when we should both be able to explain ourselves with more freedom and confidence than can be uttered or communicated by letter. I go to-day to Camden Place, and except a short excursion or two to Deal, and into Sussex, shall remain there till the 10th, the day for proroguing the Parliament. So that if your Grace will honour me with an appointment, I will wait on you in London, at your own time and place, when I shall be ready to communicate my poor opinions to your Grace, as well on the main article of your letter, as the law arrangement which your Grace is pleased to propose.

“I have the honour to be, &c., “CAMDEN.”

“September 1, 1769.”

“I am much obliged to your Grace for inquiring after my little boy. He is most fortunately recovered.”

* * * * *

The only remark I shall make on this letter is, that it was less cordial than any Lord Camden ever wrote to me either before or since. The coolness between Lord Chatham and myself gave him much vexation, and the general posture of affairs increased his uneasiness. We met in London about the middle of September, and after a long and general consideration of all that appertained to the petitions, and how far they gave necessary ground for more special notice, we agreed that in the disposition of the nation it would be wise to avoid, if possible, every step that could irritate; and that to leave the spirit to evaporate, as there were hopes that it might, would be the most expedient measure to adopt.

His Majesty had been graciously pleased at this time to summon a Chapter of the Garter, in order to invest me with the insignia of the Order; and the King did me the honour to observe, that he was pleased to have the greater satisfaction in conferring that favour, as I was one of the very few who had received it unsolicited. The Order of the Garter is a high distinction still, though certainly it is somewhat dropped from the ancient celebrity by the addition that was made to the number of the Knights some years after this.

In this month we were involved in a very serious and delicate business, which appeared at one time to be big with alarming consequences. A French frigate had come into the Downs without paying the compliment to his Majesty’s ships which the general instructions from the Admiralty to all commanders of ships direct them to require; but with which no nation except the Dutch ever complied,--and they in consequence of a treaty. An officer from a King’s ship went on board the French frigate, remonstrating with the commander on his conduct, and assuring him that he must insist on the compliment; but, meeting with no satisfactory answer, the lieutenant of our ship soon fired his first shot a-head of the French ship, and on perceiving no notice to be taken of his gun, he fired into the Frenchman with ball, and, as it was said, killed one of the men.

The proceeding was warmly resented by the Court of France, who required the fullest satisfaction for the affront, together with the dismissal _from the service_ of _the officer_ who had presumed, in time of perfect peace, to fire into a frigate belonging to the French King. Office papers were ransacked for precedents to justify the claim; few were found, and the paucity of these did not assist our cause. From the reign of Charles the Second, when a long and serious altercation took place on a similar occasion, and which may be found in the Memoirs of M. d’Estrades, and of his embassy here, one single instance (except the present) was found. This instance fell out while the Duke of Newcastle was Secretary of State, who had, on the complaint of the French Court, recommended to his late Majesty to break Lieutenant (afterwards Admiral) Smith: as soon as the Ambassador had acquainted his Court, Mr. Smith was restored to rank, and quickly promoted.

Finding that there was so little ground on precedent, it became our duty, as Ministers of the Crown, to get rid of this unpleasant incident in the best manner we were able, provided the national honour, and that of the flag, should not suffer in the explanation. Lord Weymouth reported to the Cabinet that, in the audience which he gave M. de Châtelet, his reply upon every memorial, and his language every day became more resolute, by insisting on a suitable satisfaction for the affront which had been done to the King, his master’s dignity. It was Lord Weymouth’s opinion also, that if we could find out some expedient, at the same time to save our own credit, the Ambassador would close with it. Lord Weymouth thought, from my knowledge of M. de Châtelet, that I might _unofficially_ hold with him a language tending to bring about an arrangement which might save the honour of both parties. At the desire of the Cabinet I undertook it, hoping that Sir Edward Hawke would call on me the next morning, and state fully to me what, in his opinion, would, and what would not, save the honour of the navy and the lustre of the British flag.

In point of justice not one word can be said; but it may be a question whether the ideal sovereignty of the narrow seas be not essential in elevating the enthusiastic courage of our seamen; though they have now, in the year I am writing, and, I hope, will ever have the best of pleas, from their own incredible superiority in skill and bravery over those of any other country.

The morning after the meeting of the King’s servants, Sir Edward called on me early, and, in a long conversation, we discussed every means that could be devised to answer the present purpose; and at length agreed upon one expedient, of which I made successful use in my visit to the French Ambassador, on whom I called directly, and began by stating to him the object of my visit, namely, to endeavour, by a frank and open conversation with him, to hit off some means of preventing a breach between our two countries; and, in the course of our interview, I desired him, particularly, not to allow himself to be led away with false notions of the disposition of our country from the specimen he had observed of the disposition to riot and disorder, and to give me credit, when I assured him that all these would vanish on the breaking out of a war, especially on ground so popular as that of the honour of the flag, to carry which on with spirit every Englishman would part with his last shilling. He replied, that peace was the object of his wish, as much as I had professed it to be mine. Besides, recapitulating all that had passed with Lord Weymouth, he would impart this to me, as Duke of Grafton, “that nothing could urge Louis the Fifteenth into another war, except where his honour was concerned, and that he personally felt the present affront most sensibly;” he added, “that M. de Choiseul’s interest would suffer greatly by a war, and that he would show his disposition to avoid it, if such did present itself.”

The Ambassador proposed various schemes for reconciliation; but none of them came within my own notions of what might have been admissible by the nation. Those which I first mentioned met with no better reception from M. de Châtelet; and, after a long parley of two hours, we were near parting, when I thought I might lay before him, as the only means, the very proposal I had settled with Sir Edward Hawke. It was this, that the answer to the French King’s complaint, should be, to say that his Majesty could not do so great an injustice to a lieutenant in his service, as to punish him without hearing his account of this unfortunate transaction; and that, the officer having now sailed to the East Indies, such an account could not be obtained till the return of the lieutenant. I added, to M. de Châtelet, that his return would not be expected for three years, when the affair might be supposed to have slipped into oblivion. The Ambassador, after a little consideration, told me that he liked the proposal, and would do his endeavours to make it palatable to the Duc de Choiseul.

This arrangement succeeded so fully, that we have never heard one word more of the business, since the expedient was accepted. I do not know that I was ever so much elated as, in my walk home, turning in my thoughts the effects of my visit, and reflecting on the misery which probably would be warded off from the heads of so many individuals and families. I cannot give too full testimony of the candour and zeal with which the Ambassador took up the business, and recommended the expedient to his Court; his influence prevailed, and the recollection of this conduct increased my concern on hearing of the horrid death of him and his amiable lady upon a scaffold, during the frenzy of the Revolutions in France.

You recollect, my dear Euston, the resolution I had formed of retiring from my situation, whenever I could find the moment favourable; as, also, my remark on the visible and rapid decline of my friend Lord Camden’s favour at St. James’s. This latter circumstance served to confirm me strongly in the former; for I was not so blinded, as not to feel the ground around me to be treacherous and unsafe. Though the closet was still favourable and afforded all apparent support, yet I probably owed it to those to whom my principles could never be quite congenial, and who might, on some occasion where we differed, show to me my presumption and my insignificance, particularly as they expressed their attachment strongly, because _I was emancipated from the chains of Lord Chatham and the burthen of Lord Camden_.

Parliament was to meet on the 9th of January, 1770. The necessity of having a Chancellor to vindicate the law authority of the Cabinet was dinned into my ears in most companies I frequented; and it was particularly remarked, that Mr. Charles Yorke had taken no part in the whole business of the Middlesex election that need preclude him from joining in opinion with the decisions of the Commons. Such insinuations were very irksome to me; and, about the Court, I was still more harassed with them. At last, when I was passing a few Christmas holidays at Euston, Lords Gower and Weymouth came down on a visit. They informed me, that the King, on hearing their intention of going to Euston, had expressly directed them to say, that the continuance of the Lord Chancellor in his office could not be justified, and that the Government would be too much lowered by the Great Seal appearing in Opposition, and his Majesty hoped that I should assent to his removal, and approve of an offer being made to Mr. Yorke. My answer, as well as I recollect, was, that, though it did not become me to argue against his Majesty’s remarks on the present peculiar state of the Great Seal, I must humbly request that I might be in no way instrumental in dismissing Lord Camden.

In a few days after my arrival in London, the session opened, when the Lord Chancellor spoke warmly in support of Lord Chatham’s opposition to the address, and, while we were in the House, Lord Camden told me, that he was sensible that the Seal must be taken from him, though he had no intention to resign it. At St. James’s, it was at once decided that the Seal should be demanded; but, at my request, Lord Camden held it on for some days, merely for the convenience of Government, during the negotiation for a respectable successor. No person will deny that Mr. Charles Yorke, Sir Eardley Wilmot, and Mr. De Grey, would any of them have filled the high office of Lord Chancellor with the full approbation of Westminster Hall. They were all three thought of for it, though Sir Eardley’s impaired state of health, accompanied by an humble diffidence of himself, which had been a distinguishing mark in his character through life, forbad all hopes of his acceptance.

While I continued in office, it was my duty, as well as desire, to exert myself in endeavouring to render the King’s Administration as respectable as I was able. Though I lamented and felt grievously the loss of Lord Camden’s support, from which I derived so much comfort and assistance, yet I was satisfied that the lawyers I have mentioned were men equal to discharge the duties of a Chancellor. I therefore received the King’s commands to write to Mr. Yorke directly. I saw him the next day. He received the offer of the Great Seal with much gratitude to his Majesty, but hoped that he should be allowed to return his answer when he should have given it a day’s consideration. Mr. Charles Yorke remained with me between two and three hours, dwelling much on the whole of his own political thoughts and conduct, together with a comment on the principal public occurrences of the present reign. When he came to make remarks on the actual state of things, after speaking with much regard of many in Administration, he said, that it was essential to him to be informed from me, whether I was open to a negotiation for extending the Administration, so as to comprehend those with whom I had formerly, and he constantly, wished to agree. My answer was, that he could not desire more earnestly than myself to see an Administration as comprehensive as possible, and that this object could only be brought about by the reunion of the Whigs, adding, that I should be happy to have his assistance to effect it. Mr. Yorke appeared to be pleased with this answer, and, after many civilities on both sides, we parted.

On his return to me, the next day, I found him a quite altered man, for his mind was then made up to decline the offer from his Majesty, and that so decidedly, that I did not attempt to say anything further on the subject. He expressed, however, a wish to be allowed an audience of his Majesty. This was granted, and, at the conclusion of it, the King, with the utmost concern, wrote to acquaint me that Mr. Yorke had declined the Seal. On his appearing soon after at the levee, his Majesty called him into his closet immediately after it was over. What passed there I know not; but nothing could exceed my astonishment, when Lord Hillsborough came into my dressing-room, in order to tell me that Mr. Yorke was in my parlour, and that he was Lord Chancellor, through the persuasion of the King himself in his closet. Mr. Yorke corroborated to me what I had heard from Lord Hillsborough, and I received the same account from his Majesty as soon as I could get down to St. James’s. Mr. Yorke stayed but a little time with me; but his language gave me new hopes that an Administration might shortly be produced which the nation would approve. How soon did this plausible hope vanish into a visionary expectation only, from the death of Mr. Yorke before he became Lord Morden, or we could have any preliminary discourse on the measure he earnestly desired to forward!

I had long been acquainted with Mr. Yorke, and held him in high esteem. He certainly appeared less easy and communicative with me, from the time of his acceptance to his death, than I might expect; but it was natural to imagine that he would be more agitated than usual, when arduous and intricate business was rushing at once upon him. I had not the least conception of any degree of agitation that could bring him to his sad and tragical end; nor will I presume to conjecture what motives in his own breast, or anger in that of others, had driven him to repent of the step he had just taken. By his own appointment, I went to his house, about nine o’clock in the evening,--two days, as I believe, after Mr Yorke had been sworn in at a Council-board, summoned for that purpose at the Queen’s house. Being shown into his library below, I waited a longer time than I supposed Mr. Yorke would have kept me, without some extraordinary cause. After above half-an-hour waiting, Dr. Watson, his physician, came into the room; he appeared somewhat confused, sat himself down for a few minutes, letting me know that Mr. Yorke was much indisposed from an attack of colic. Dr. Watson soon retired, and I was ruminating on the untowardness of the circumstance, never suspecting the fatal event which had occurred, nor the still more lamentable cause ascribed for it by the world, and, as I fear, upon too just grounds. I rang the bell, and acquainted one of the servants that Mr. Yorke was probably too ill to see me, and that I should postpone the business on which I came to a more favourable moment. Mr. Yorke, I believe, was a religious man: it is rare to hear of such a person being guilty of an action so highly criminal. It must, therefore, in him have been a degree of passionate frenzy, bearing down every atom of his reason: you will not wonder that I cannot think on the subject without much horror still.

Here I stood again, under more perplexing difficulties than ever, and without any expectation of additional strength, but what would arise alone from the appointment of an able Chancellor. Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, after Mr. Yorke’s death, declined the acceptance of the Great Seal, from the causes I have already assigned. Under these unpromising circumstances, I still persisted in endeavouring to fill up the vacant Chancellor’s post by an efficient and respected character. By the King’s commands, I saw Mr. De Grey, a most able and upright lawyer, and as perfect a gentleman, and who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. In a long conference we had at his house, he appeared inclined to undertake the situation, in spite of his frequent attacks of gout. But, on entering something further into particulars, he put this question to me, “Are you determined yourself to remain a certain time in your present post?” My answer decided him at once to decline, for I told him that I thought of retiring as soon as I could reconcile it to my own heart, and that I foresaw this might be very near at hand indeed, for I assured him that I should not seek for any other Chancellor, if he refused the offer of the Great Seal.

You will feel for me in this distressing dilemma. You will perceive that I had left nothing untried to bring the vessel to tolerable trim; and, when you consider that, quitted by Lord Camden, and at the same time by Lord Granby, I had no reliance in the Cabinet but on General Conway alone, I trust you will think that, under such circumstances, I could not proceed and be of service to the King or to the country; and recollect that the hopes of co-operation with Mr. Yorke, to bring about an essential addition of right principle, credit, and support, vanished of course with himself. I laid before his Majesty directly my difficulties, and observed that they were such as compelled me to retire from my office, though it would be my full desire to give all assistance to his Majesty’s Government. As it would be thoroughly ungrateful to pass over entirely the concern his Majesty manifested on this occasion, I am induced to observe that the King’s earnestness with me to alter my resolution, far surpassed everything which my poor services could possibly have merited.

Towards the end of January, 1770, I left the Treasury, but continued to give the Administration under Lord North what support I was able. The number of independent gentlemen, members chiefly of the House of Commons, who came to me at this juncture, expressing their desire of taking their part with me, both surprised and flattered me, for many of the number were little known to me. I returned them many thanks for the honour they did me by this proof of their good opinion, which I should never forget, though my mind was made up, as I told them, to keep myself as single and independent as a political man could be.

At this time, Lord Chatham’s virulence seemed to be directed against myself; he persisted, for some days, in the intention of charging me in Parliament with having advised the removal of Lord Camden, on account of his vote in the House; nor was he dissuaded from this, till Lord Camden had assured him that he knew so perfectly that the advice did not come from me, that he should, if his Lordship made the motion, think it incumbent on him to rise in his place, and declare that he well knew it was not from my advice. This idea was wholly dropped in our House on this declaration from Lord Camden, but I think that some member of the House of Commons made a motion of the same tendency, but met with no support.

In the last days of January, Lord Rockingham moved for a day to be fixed when he should enter upon the consideration of the state of the nation. Lord Chatham meant to be the seconder, but I started up myself to second Lord Rockingham, and to profess my readiness and wish to go into any inquiry that the House should approve. On the day fixed, the Marquis made his motion, which related wholly to the rights of the Commons on judicial authority in matters of election. In debate, arguments went further; and, in particular, Lord Chatham condemned the conduct of the Commons with much asperity, in a speech which betrayed no want of mental or bodily powers. A great majority supported the Ministers, and Lord Marchmont made the following motion, which was not only approved, but said to be penned by Lord Mansfield himself, who gave it his fullest support, in a very brilliant speech:--“That any resolution of this House, directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the House of Commons, in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent, final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the Commons, tends to make a breach between the two Houses of Parliament, and leads to a general confusion.” This motion was, as I thought, highly necessary, and it received my fullest support. Lord Chatham continued, for two months together, in a more active opposition to the Ministry than I had ever known in his Lordship, and, after many motions, which were all negatived, he moved an address to his Majesty to dissolve the Parliament, on the ground that the people had no confidence in the House of Commons, at a time when the discontents in England, Ireland, and America were threatening to a high degree. This motion was rejected, as you may imagine, without much debate, and by Administration with little attention.

VI.

In the summer of 1771, the Duke of Grafton was again induced to join the Administration, and he accepted the Privy Seal in the hope that he might prevent the quarrel with America from proceeding to extremities. But when he discovered that, in opposition to his earnest remonstrances, Government resisted all conciliation, were determined upon coercive measures, and would pay no regard even to the petition brought over by Mr. Penn in 1775, which was emphatically called the Olive Branch; and finally withdrew from that Administration; and having, in a private audience, explained to the Monarch his views of the state and dangers of the country if the present measures were pursued,--he became a temperate but firm opposer of the Ministry which lost America.

In the year 1782, the Duke of Grafton accepted the Office of Privy Seal under the Administration of Lord Rockingham, and retained his situation after the death of that truly patriotic nobleman and the resignation of Mr. Fox. Upon the accession of the Coalition Ministry in 1783, he resigned his office, and never afterwards resumed his seat in the Cabinet.[221]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Lord Weymouth was governed by Wood (author of the editions of Palmyra and Balbec), his secretary, who was suspected of having, in concert with Sullivan, betrayed the East India Company at the last peace. Wood was a great stockjobber, and now, and in the following year, was vehemently accused of bending the bow of war towards the butt of his interest. This was the more suspected, as, though we had now been the aggressors, France had for some time winked at the insult offered to their ship, and wished to receive no answer to their memorial, when Wood persisted in making a reply--which lowered the stocks. He who thus lowered them, could raise them again when he pleased.

[2] Mainon D’Invau saw that, with a Court so entirely demoralized as that of Louis the Fifteenth, any extensive financial reforms were impracticable. He had the disinterestedness to refuse the pension usually enjoyed by Ministers _en retraite_.--E.

[3] The Princess of Beauvau told me this story of him when he was Vice-Chancellor:--She found fault with the situation of his house; Maupeou replied he could see the Hôtel de Choiseul from the windows of his garrets, and that was felicity enough.

[4] Madame d’Esparbès, a woman of quality, was one of the mistresses that succeeded Madame de Pompadour, and hated the Duc de Choiseul. As he was one day coming down the great staircase at Versailles he met her going to the King. He took her by the hand, told her he knew her designs, led her down, returned to the King, and obtained an order for her appearing no more at Court. When Madame du Barry became the favourite mistress, by the intrigues of Maréchal de Richelieu, the Duc de Choiseul, seeing her pass through the gallery at Versailles, said to the Maréchal, “N’est ce pas Madame de Maintenon qui passe?”--a satire on Richelieu, who was so old as to remember the latter, for paying court in the dregs of life to the former, and marking his contempt for both the mistress and her flatterer.

[5] See the character of Choiseul, supra, vol. ii. p. 243.

[6] I one evening heard the Maréchal relate the histories of his five imprisonments in the Bastille. The first was for having, at fifteen, hid himself under the bed of the Duchess of Burgundy, the King’s mother. The second, I think, was for following the Regent’s daughter in the dress of a footman when she went to marry the Duke of Modena. I forget the others, or he had not time to finish them, for though he related well, he was not concise.

[7] Four or five years after the period I am speaking of, the Maréchal was greatly disgraced by seducing a married woman of quality, Madame de St. Vincent, descendant of the famous Madame de Sevigné. The suit between them made considerable noise. At his hotel in Paris he built a pavilion in his garden, luxuriously furnished, for his amours; as it was supposed to be built with his plunder of the Electorate of Hanover, it was nicknamed _Le Pavillon d’Hanovre_.

[8] In his eighty-third year he married his third wife, who, it is said, had too much reason to complain of his infidelities. This heartless voluptuary died in 1788, at the great age of ninety-two.--E.

[9] See supra, vol ii. p. 245.--E.

[10] He claimed affinity with the Barrys, Earls of Barrymore, and that family did acknowledge the relationship, and had the meanness, when so many French would not, to grace the mistress’s triumph at Versailles. [This alludes to Lady Barrymore, a foolish woman, whom Walpole ridicules in his Correspondence. An amusing life of the Comte du Barry is given in the Biographie Universelle, partly from an autobiographical MS. He seems to have been a consummate blackguard. He perished by the guillotine in 1794. A more favourable account of the Du Barrys is to be found in Capefigue, the panegyrist of every Bourbon king but Henry the Fourth.--(Louis XV., et la Société du XVIII. Siècle, t. iv. pp. 106–111.)--E.]

[11] It was a most absurd etiquette at the Court of France that the King’s mistress should be a married woman,--perhaps for fear of the precedent of Madame de Maintenon.

[12] She was the daughter of the Comte de Chabot, and widow of a Monsieur de Clermont. The Prince de Beauvau, son of the late Prince de Craon, a Lorrainer, and one of the Colonels of the King’s guards, had been attached to her, during the life of his first wife, daughter of the Duc de Bouillon, and married her on his wife’s death. [The Prince had served with distinction in the German wars. He was made Governor of Provence in 1782, and Marshal in 1783. He died in 1793.--E.]

[13] I once said this very thing to her. I was sitting by her at her own house at some distance from the rest of the company, and we were talking of the stand making against Madame du Barry. The Duchesse de Choiseul asked me if that opposition of the nobility to the King’s pleasure would not be reckoned greatly to their honour in England? I answered coldly, “Yes, Madam.” “Come,” said she, “you are not in earnest; but I insist on you telling me seriously what you think.” I replied, “Madam, if you command me, and will promise not to be angry, I will tell you fairly my opinion.” She promised she would. “Then,” said I, “I think this is all very well for Mesdames de Beauvau and de Grammont; but _you_, Madam, had no occasion to be so scrupulous.” She understood the compliment, and was pleased--and I knew she would not dislike it, as it was no secret to me that she was violently jealous of and hated her sister-in-law; and I knew, too, that her warmth against Madame du Barry was put on, that Madame de Grammont might not appear to have more zeal against the Duc de Choiseul’s enemy than she had. When she advised her husband to resign, she was more sincere. Her warmest wish was to live retired with her husband, on whom she doted; and she perhaps thought the Duchesse de Grammont did not love her brother enough to quit the world for him. She herself was once on the point of retiring into a convent from the disgusts the Duchesse de Grammont continually gave her. The Duke always sat between his wife and sister at dinner, and sometimes kissed the latter’s hand. Madame de Choiseul was timid, modest, and bashful, and had a little hesitation in her speech. Madame de Grammont took pleasure in putting her out of countenance. When the Duke was banished, his wife and sister affected to be reconciled, that their hatred might not disturb his tranquillity. Madame de Choiseul was pretty, and remarkably well made, but excessively little, and too grave for so spirituous a man. Madame de Grammont, with a fine complexion, was coarsely made, had a rough voice, and an overbearing manner, but could be infinitely agreeable when she pleased. Madame de Choiseul was universally beloved and respected, but neglected; Madame de Grammont was hated by most, liked by many, feared and courted by all, as long as her brother was in power. Her own parts, and the great party that was attached to the Duke, even after his fall, secured much court to the Duchesse de Grammont. The Duke esteemed his wife, but was tired of her virtues and gravity. His volatile gallantry did not confine itself to either.

[14] Madame de Mirepoix was the eldest daughter of the beautiful Princesse de Craon, mistress of Leopold, Duke of Lorraine, who married her to Monsieur de Beauvau, a poor nobleman of an ancient family, whom he got made a Prince of the Empire. [She was a woman of extraordinary wit and cleverness, but totally without character. Many amusing anecdotes of her may be found in the memoirs of the day, especially those of Madame de Haussez.--E.]

[15] Madame de Monconseil was the friend and correspondent of Lord Chesterfield, whose letters to her show that he entertained a high opinion of her sense and good breeding.--(See Lord Chesterfield’s Letters, vol. iii. p. 159, note. Lord Mahon’s edition.)--E.

[16] It is due to the satisfaction of the reader that I should give an account how a stranger could become so well acquainted with the secret history of the Court of France. I have mentioned my intimacy with the Prince and Princesse de Craon. It was in the years 1740 and 1741, when the Prince was head of the Council there, and my father was Prime Minister of England, I resided thirteen months at Florence, in the house of Sir Horace Mann, our resident and my own cousin--passed almost every evening at the Princesse’s, and being about two years older than their son the Prince de Beauvau, contracted a friendship with him, and was with the whole family at Rome when the Prince went thither to receive the toison d’or from the Prince of Santa Croce, the Emperor’s Ambassador. That connection with her family soon made me as intimate with Madame de Mirepoix on her arrival in England, which my frequent journeys to Paris kept up. Madame de Monconseil had been in correspondence with my father; I was acquainted with her in 1739, and renewed my visits in 1765, and often since. Her house was the rendezvous of the Duc de Choiseul’s enemies, and I have supped there with Maréchal Richelieu and Madame de Mirepoix. The Dowager Duchesse d’Aiguillon was an intimate friend of my friend Lady Hervey, and was remarkably good to me. In England I was as intimate with the Comte and Comtesse du Châtelet, the bosom friends of the Duc de Choiseul, and was regularly of their private suppers twice a-week, just at the beginning of Madame du Barry’s reign; and as they knew how well I was at the Hôtel de Choiseul, and consequently better acquainted than almost any man in England with what was passing, it was an entertainment to them to talk to me on those affairs; at the same time that I had had the prudence never to take any part which would not become a stranger, and was thus well received by both parties. The Maréchal Richelieu was an old lover of the Dowager Duchesse d’Aiguillon, and constantly at her house; and yet she acted a handsome and neutral part; and it was at last that with great difficulty her son could make her go to Madame du Barry. But the great source of my intelligence was the celebrated old blind Marquise du Deffand, who had a strong and lasting friendship for me. As she hated politics, she entered into none, but being the intimate friend of the Duchesse de Choiseul, who called her “granddaughter” (Madame du Deffand having had a grandmother Duchesse de Choiseul), of the Prince of Beauvau and of Madame de Mirepoix, I saw them all by turns at their house, heard their intrigues, and from her: and on two of my journeys I generally supped five nights in a week with her at the Duchesse de Choiseul’s, whither the Duke often came--and in those, and in the private parties at Madame du Deffand’s I heard such extraordinary conversations as I should not have heard if I had not been so very circumspect, as they all knew. I shall mention some instances hereafter. Here are two. Madame de Mirepoix soon grew not content with Madame du Barry. I was one evening very late on the Boulevard with Mesdames du Mirepoix and Du Deffand. The latter asked the former, “Que deviendroit Madame du Barry, si le Roi venoit à mourir?” “Que deviendroit elle?” replied she, with the utmost scorn; “elle iroit à la Salpetrière, et elle est très faite pour y aller.” On the death of Louis the Fifteenth Madame de Mirepoix was disgraced; on which her brother, the Prince de Beauvau, in compassion, was reconciled to her, and she and the Princess pretended to be reconciled, and always kissed when they met. I saw them and their niece, the Viscomtesse de Cambis, act three of Molière’s plays two nights together, to divert Madame du Deffand, who was ill. This was in 1775. Yet when I went to take leave of Madame de Mirepoix, she opened her heart to me, and showed me how heartily she still hated her sister-in-law.

[17] He died in 1769. He was a virtuous man, and a great mathematician--qualities equally uncommon in a courtier of the days of Louis the Fifteenth.--E.

[18] The Comte du Châtelet told me that the Duc de Choiseul having learnt from Madame de Pompadour that she intended the disgrace of the Cardinal, and the Duke for his successor, and observing that the Cardinal had no apprehension of his approaching fall, was so generous as to give him warning of it.

[19] See, however, vol. iii. p. 367, note.--E.

[20] This indifference to the public credit was a fatal error in the reforms of the Abbé Terray, and alone sufficed to prove his ignorance of the elementary principles of finance. He is represented to have been morose, disagreeable, and dissolute. His dismissal from office was one of the earliest and certainly most popular acts of Louis the Sixteenth.--E.

[21] The Princesse de Lamballe had married the eldest son of the Duc de Penthièvre. She perished in the Revolution. Her Memoirs, an agreeable if not a perfectly authentic work, were published in 1826.--E.

[22] The Emperor Joseph the Second, after the death of his second wife. He had been passionately fond of his first wife, who was very amiable. The second was as disagreeable.

[23] Not the present Queen of France, but an Archduchess, her eldest sister. The double marriage was much talked of, and this letter proves that the King had had it in his thoughts.

[24] Louis the Fourteenth, who married Madame de Maintenon.

[25] He was at this time supporting the Government against what he considered the anti-popular party.--E.

[26] Junius, Letter xxxvi.--E.

[27] Lord Rockingham had prepared another motion, but did not produce it, though offended at Lord Chatham’s.

[28] When Lord Chatham’s motion was shown to Grenville, he lifted up his eyes at seeing Wilkes’s name in it. It was no doubt inserted to soothe Wilkes, who had lately abused him in a rancorous letter to Grenville; for nothing exceeded Lord Chatham’s pusillanimity to those who attacked him, except his insolence to those who feared him. At this time he did not avoid holding out hopes to the King’s favourites, that he would not remove them if he came into power. “_I will not_,” said he, in his metaphoric rhodomontade, “_touch a hair of the tapestry of the Court_.”

[29] It might be inferred from this statement that it was the practice of the Lord Chancellor to examine the election writs before they pass the Great Seal. This is a duty, however, which neither Lord Camden nor any other Chancellor ever imposed upon himself, and I am informed that there is no instance of the Great Seal having been withheld from a writ which had passed through the Crown-office. In fact, whatever may have been the original intention of the law in requiring the Great Seal to be affixed to the Parliamentary writs, the Lord Chancellor’s office in this respect has of late years become merely executive.--E.

[30] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 645.--E.

[31] Lord Granby had just accepted a very considerable obligation from the Ministers. At the end of the last session they and their creatures in the House of Commons had most unjustly voted him the borough of Bramber, so legally the property of Sir Henry Gough, that he had been offered forty thousand pounds for it.

[32] Elizabeth, only daughter of Sir William Wyndham, and sister of the Earls of Egremont and Thomond. She was a woman of sense and merit, with strong passions.

[33] A brief report of these debates is given in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 668, note. It is obviously partial to the Opposition.--E.

[34] This spirited debate is reported in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 668.--E.

[35] It appears from Lord Camden’s MS. letters to the Duke of Grafton, that he had in the first instance underrated the importance of Wilkes’s case. He next entered heartily into the general indignation which Wilkes had excited. On the 3rd of April he writes, “If the precedents and the constitution warrant an expulsion, that perhaps may be right. A criminal flying his country to escape justice--a convict and an outlaw--that such a person should in open daylight throw himself upon the county as a candidate, his crime unexpiated, is audacious beyond description.” Still, he believes that the public excitement on the subject will soon subside.

The proceedings in the Court of King’s Bench, when Wilkes’s counsel gave notice of a motion for a reversal of the outlawry and an arrest of judgment, made a deep impression on Lord Camden. His feelings had by this time cooled, and he viewed the case as a lawyer. He communicated his change of opinion to the Duke in a letter of the 20th of April, and although the communication was confidential, the bent of his mind seems to have been pretty well understood by his colleagues. As the difficulties increased he took the matter more to heart, and on the 9th of January 1769 he writes again to the Duke, expressing great uneasiness, and announcing distinctly his opposition to the view taken by the Cabinet of Wilkes’s case. He pronounces it “a hydra multiplying by resistance, and gathering strength by every attempt to subdue it.” “As the times are,” he says, “I had rather pardon Wilkes than punish him. This is a political opinion independent of the merits of the case.” These representations were fruitless. The Duke had taken his part, was committed to the King and the Cabinet, and, besides being of a hot temper, had become so exasperated by Wilkes’s conduct as to consider his honour would suffer from making the slightest concession to such a man. Unhappily this difference of opinion materially affected the intercourse of the Duke with Lord Camden. The former admits and laments in his Memoirs that they seldom met during the summer of 1769. The Duke’s marriage and frequent absence from London kept them still more apart, and in the autumn it is obvious from the tone of Lord Camden’s letters that he felt the separation to be inevitable.--E.

[36] He was the direct heir of George Duke of Clarence, whose daughter, Margaret Countess of Salisbury, was mother of Henry Pole, Lord Montacute, whose eldest daughter and heiress married an Earl of Huntingdon.

[37] Lord Huntingdon had flattered Lord Bute for some time that he would marry his second and favourite daughter, Lady Jane, afterwards married to Sir George Maccartney.

[38] George William Coventry, Earl of Coventry. He was the senior Peer, but Lord Robert Bertie was an older Lord of the Bedchamber than Lord Coventry; the post of Groom of the Stole was never given but to a peer. [Walpole describes him in 1752 as “a grave young Lord of the remains of the patriot breed.” Little of the spirit of his ancestors seems to have descended to him. He was a Lord of the Bedchamber in two reigns, and led an easy luxurious life, being hardly known, except as the husband of one of the most beautiful women of the day. He died in 1809, at the advanced age of eighty-seven.--E.]

[39] Sir John Cust died on the morning of the 22nd.--(See a more favourable account of him in a note to vol. i. p. 87.)--E.

[40] For the Great Seal was never affixed to the patent of his barony, and the King had not the generosity to make atonement to his family by confirming the promise, for having forced the unhappy person to take a step that cost him his life.

[41] Very few days after the accident Mr. Edmund Burke came to me in extreme perturbation, and complained bitterly of the King, who, he said, had forced Mr. Yorke to disgrace himself. Lord Rockingham, he told me, was yet more affected at Mr. Yorke’s misfortune, and would, as soon as he could, see Lord Hardwicke, make an account public, in which the King’s unjustifiable behaviour should be exposed. I concluded from his agitation that they wanted to disculpate Lord Hardwicke and Lord Rockingham of having given occasion to Mr. Yorke’s despair. They found it prudent, however, to say no more on the subject. An astonishing and indecent circumstance that followed not very long after that tragedy was, that Lord Hardwicke, whose reproaches had occasioned his brother’s death, attached himself to the Court, against Lord Rockingham, and obtained bishopricks for another of his brothers!

[42] General John Waldegrave, third Earl of Waldegrave.

[43] Conway’s disinterestedness did not on this, as on other occasions, obtain very general praise. It seems to have been expected that he would take the salary as soon as he decently could.--(Burke’s Correspondence, vol. i. p. 136.)--E.

[44] If the report in Cavendish (vol. i. p. 458) be correct, the motion was made on the 16th of February.--E.

[45] Mr. Stonehewer’s name has been handed down to posterity by his friendship with the poet Gray, who owed to his interest with the Duke of Grafton the appointment of Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. Many letters to him are to be found in Gray’s works. He long held the post of a Commissioner of Excise. He died a bachelor, leaving a considerable fortune to his nephew, who took his name.--E.

[46] The continuance of the Duke’s intimacy with Bradshaw surely furnishes very strong evidence that he soon discovered his suspicions to be without foundation. I am informed by the present Duke of Grafton that his grandfather entertained an affectionate regard for Mr. Bradshaw’s memory, and a portrait of that gentleman still forms part of the collection at Euston.--E.

[47] The Duke probably had no direct connection with Lord Bute, but had every reason to believe that the latter still enjoyed the King’s confidence--at least, through his tools, Jenkinson, Dyson, &c.; and he had no reason to doubt, and yet submitted to, that secret influence. Bradshaw was certainly the Earl’s creature, though the Duke did not then know it; but it is not probable that a pension to Dyson would have been added to the Duke’s last disposition, had Dyson not been admitted to his Grace’s confidence. Of Dyson’s attachment to Lord Bute the Duke was assured by Dyson’s being saved by the King when the Duke and Lord Rockingham came into Administration together.--(See _infra_.)

[48] The Duke of Grafton’s motives for resigning were no doubt of a mixed character. His own statement of them will be found in the Appendix. It is easy to believe that he had for some time been anxious to be released from a position which could not be otherwise than most painful to a man of honour. The business of the Government, always onerous to a chief not used to much application, nor having served any apprenticeship in subordinate offices, was made particularly irksome to him by his being left without a single colleague in the great departments of the State whom he could call his friend. On the leading questions of public policy, he often found himself in a minority. His proposition for the immediate repeal of all the American import duties was rejected by the casting vote of Lord Rochford, whom he had himself recently introduced into the Cabinet. Lord North and the Bedford party, by superior attention to the details of business, had also drawn the management of affairs into their hands; and, at the same time, ingratiated themselves with the King, so that the Duke received no support from his Majesty against them, and was subjected to mortifications, which must have been most trying to his irritable temper. It was only after much persuasion that he could be induced to accept the Treasury; he regarded his acceptance as a concession to his political friends and to the King; and, finding himself now virtually deserted by both, it is not surprising that he should seek to divest himself of a character which had ceased to be even respectable. No doubt he committed a serious blunder in withholding from the public the real grounds of his resignation. It has, irreparably, damaged his name with posterity. He was by no means the insignificant or worthless personage that he appears in the pages of Walpole and of Junius. That he had talents is proved by the single fact of his being able during, at least, one session to resist the whole force of the Opposition in the Lords with no assistance, except from Lord Camden. There is a letter from Mr. Fox among the Grafton MSS. saying, that there is no public man whom he should prefer as a Leader. The spirit with which he entered the lists with Lord Chatham betrayed no want of courage. His political principles were those of the Revolution; and where he departed from them, it was from an error of judgment rather than of intention. A genuine love of peace, and hatred of oppression, either civil or religious, marked the whole of his public life; and, great as were the errors which Walpole and Junius have justly denounced in his private conduct, it is only just to state that, from the date of these memoirs to his death, which comprises a period of near forty years, there were few individuals more highly and generally esteemed.--E.

[49] Mr. Dyson’s pension was taken away by a resolution of the Irish House of Commons, on the 25th of November 1771, by a majority of _one_.--E.

[50] The following is the King’s note to Lord North on the following morning:--“1st. Feb. 1770--A majority of forty on the old ground, at least ten times before, is a very favourable auspice on your taking a lead in Administration. A little spirit will soon restore order in my service. I am glad to find Sir Gilbert Elliot has again spoke.”--(MS.)--E.

[51] I presume that there were more than one of this name who had been thus discreditably employed by the Grenvilles. One had already obtained the Deanery of Norwich (vol. ii. p. 6).--E.

[52] When the Government was formed, Sir Gilbert Elliot had said to Lord North that he wished Mr. Grenville could have been included. “Lord North agreed, but said it was impossible.”--(Elliot’s MS. Journal.)--E.

[53] Lord North was so careless of answering letters, that he made enemies of the Dukes of Marlborough and Bridgewater by that neglect. His behaviour to the Duke of Gloucester amounted to brutality and want of feeling. In the subsequent breach between the King and his Royal Highness, the latter wrote a letter to his Majesty, begging a provision for his wife and children, and sent the letter by Lord North. The latter received the King’s answer on Friday night, but choosing to go the next morning to Bushy Park for two days for his amusement, though he could not but be sensible of the Duke’s anxiety at such a moment, and which would be increased by knowing the answer was given, Lord North only sent the Duke word on the Friday night that he had got the King’s answer, and would bring it to his Royal Highness on the following Monday. There was mean insolence, too, in the disrespect, as the Duke could not but feel that Lord North would not have treated him so rudely if his Royal Highness had not been in disgrace.

[54] At one of the Councils held to consider what steps should be taken against Wilkes, when the Duke of Grafton was Minister and Lord North Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some were for violence and some for moderation, Lord North said not a word. At last Lord Camden, Lord Chancellor, asked him why he did not give his opinion? Lord North answered that he had been waiting for their Lordships’ determination, being perfectly indifferent what resolution they should take, as he was ready to adopt whatever plan they should fix on. Lord Camden was so shocked at that profligacy that he left the room. This account I received from Lord Camden.

[55] On the death of Lord Holderness, Warden of the Cinque Ports, in 1778, the Duke of Dorset expected to succeed, having applied to Lord North previously for his interest, who gave the Duke his word he would not be his competitor; yet the post was conferred on Lord North himself. The Duke asked an audience of the King, and complained of this breach of promise. The King said Lord North had not broken any promise, for the place had been given to him without his asking it. A man of scrupulous honour would not have been contented with that evasion even if he had said, “I will not _ask_ for the place.” He must have known that the Duke could understand nothing but that he would not be the person to intercept the office. A refusal of his interest would have been honest; to have asked for the place, notwithstanding he had promised he would not, would have been a brave defiance of honesty; to take it after that promise was dirty, and unwise, too, for he offended the Duke more by that evasion than he would have done by refusing to assist him in obtaining the post. No Minister is bound to promise all that is asked, but every Minister is obliged to act like a gentleman, and not like an attorney or a Jesuit. [It is probable that Lord North had reason to believe that his refusal of the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports would not be the means of securing that office for the Duke of Dorset. It is certain that no Minister ever held his high post with a personal character more unblemished. In the letters occasionally cited in these notes, the King often contrasts Lord North’s disinterestedness with the very different conduct which his Majesty had witnessed in some of his other servants. Lord North was far from wealthy,--a circumstance which the King had discovered, and hence his Majesty earnestly sought an opportunity of making a permanent provision for him.--E.]

[56] If Walpole had been aware of the correspondence that passed between the King and Lord North to which I have occasionally referred, he would not have made this remark. Nothing but the entreaties of the King could have prevailed on Lord North to remain in office as long as he did. His applications for permission to resign were frequent and most urgent.--E.

[57] The Royal Marriage Act was drawn by Lord Mansfield, and was so much against Lord North’s opinion, that he declared he would not support it--yet he did. It was reported that he was bribed by a grant of part of the Savoy, which about that time the Crown intended to sell--but that was never proved [nor believed by any impartial person.--(See the note in p. 81 _supra_.--E.)]

[58] Son of William Townshend, third son of Charles Viscount Townshend, Knight of the Garter. This Charles Townshend, who must not be confounded with his cousin, the famous Charles, had been employed in Spain, and was distinguished by the appellation of the Spanish Charles.

[59] Welbore Ellis, afterwards Lord Mendip, and often mentioned in these Memoirs.--E.

[60] The following entry occurs in Sir Gilbert’s MS. Journal:--“Friday, 3rd February. Went to Court; heard that Lord Howe had resigned. Lord North made me the offer of the Treasurership of the Navy; said the King wished I might accept, as many persons were doubtful. Though hazardous, I did accept on the spot.” The mode in which the offer is made and accepted, raises a presumption against the existence of the intimate confidence which the King was believed by Walpole to place in Sir Gilbert Elliot.--E.

[61] A brief report of this interesting debate is given in Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal. “The Duke of Grafton, who spoke with great gravity and weight, said, as he had before declared, that it had been less likely to occur to _him_ to apply to the Chancellor; persuaded he was right, he was not solicitous about more advice; but did it become a friend with the Great Seal in his hand to suffer a friend, he all the while silent, to involve the Administration in what he deemed an illegal act?” On Lord Chatham saying that the Chancellor had early told him his opinion, Lord Weymouth expressed astonishment that the Chancellor should communicate to a private man at Hayes what he had concealed from the Cabinet. The Chancellor was certainly to blame in not earlier resigning his office, since he was determined to go into opposition the moment Lord Chatham appeared; but his health making that event doubtful, possibly led the Chancellor into a conduct generally censured, and which had greatly obstructed the affairs of Government.”--(See also Lord Brougham’s remarks on this transaction in “Statesmen of the Time of George the Third,” vol. iii. p. 171.)--E.

[62] The enormous increase of the national debt having occasioned a prodigious number of new taxes, the augmentation of officers to levy those duties, had been a very principal cause of extending the influence of the Crown, by the vast number of votes it necessarily commanded in all the great commercial towns and ports. Such a bill as this here mentioned was warmly contended for in 1781, and actually was obtained in 1782 on the change of the Administration.

[63] This debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 443. Mr. Grenville’s speech contains much curious information.--E.

[64] The Speaker certainly exhibited great want of temper and judgment on the occasion.--(See the details in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 461.)--E.

[65] This is a remarkable coincidence, and nothing more. It was from no good will to Sir James Lowther that Mr. Robinson received this appointment, for Sir James’s name seldom occurs in the King’s letters to Lord North without some harsh or condemnatory expression; besides, the King says of him, even in 1779, “he is scarce worth gaining.” Mr. Robinson was long in the King’s confidence, and employed in the most secret affairs. He represented Harwich for many years, and realized a considerable fortune in office. His only daughter married Lord Abergavenny.--E.

[66] The confidence placed by Lord North in Sir Gilbert Elliot strengthened this suspicion, but the entries in Sir Gilbert’s MS. Journal furnish strong internal evidence that Lord Bute took little or no part in public affairs at this time. An event of such importance as the Duke of Grafton’s intended resignation is not communicated to Lord Bute until six days after it had been known to Sir Gilbert, and then only through Lady Bute.--E.

[67] He was First Lord.

[68] See a brief report in Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 846.--E.

[69] See the report of the debate in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 483–500. Lord North’s and Mr. Grenville’s speeches are able, particularly the latter, which contains some interesting facts explanatory and exculpatory of the passing of the Stamp Act. A fair, sensible, and impressive description of the state of public opinion in the North American Colonies was given by the Hon. Colonel Mackay (brother of Lord Reay), who had lately been serving there with his regiment. General Conway proposed to raise a colonial revenue, by a requisition to the provinces from the Crown--a plan which met with no support from any party. It is evident from the admissions made by the Ministers that they felt the impolicy of retaining the tea duty. Their difficulty was, how to abandon it without risking their own honour, or what they perhaps valued more, the King’s favour. Dr. Franklin, in a letter written a fortnight after the debate, expresses a confident opinion that it would have been repealed but for the impression made on the House by Lord North’s reading the letters to which Walpole refers.--E.

[70] Sir James Hodges, Knt., was the town-clerk. He had been a tradesman on London Bridge, and a very forward speaker at all City meetings.--E.

[71] “The answer was chiefly prepared by Dyson. It had received correction from several hands, and I believe was seen by Lord Mansfield.”--(Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal.)--E.

[72] Eldest son of the Earl of Bute, [and created Marquis of Bute in 1796. He was for a short time Minister at Turin. He died in 1814.--E.]

[73] It is impossible not to call the attention of the reader to the conduct of that profligate man, Wedderburne. Sprung from a Jacobite family (his uncle having been executed for the last rebellion), he had set out a courtly advocate, but being laid aside on the change of times, he had plunged into all the intemperance of opposition, and now appeared a warm partisan of liberty, and an accuser of his own immediate patrons. His mischievous abilities soon forced him again into employment, which as naturally led him back to his old monarchic principles, to support which, he, so lately a champion of the constitution, was made Attorney-General, and at length Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

George Grenville was the very counterpart of Wedderburne. He was not only educated a Whig, but had leaned to republicanism. Becoming Prime Minister, no man had shown himself more despotic. When overturned by his own violence, he reverted to opposition; but having consummate pride and obstinacy, and none of the flexibility of Wedderburne, but so far more honesty, he wavered between faction and haughtiness, baffled his own purposes by half measures, and could no more accommodate his inflexible temper to the necessary means of regaining his power, than he had been able to bend it to those that were requisite for maintaining it.

[74] Colonel Clavering subsequently reaped more substantial fruits of royal favour. He was soon raised to the rank of Lieutenant-General, and made a Knight of the Bath, and Commander-in-chief in Bengal. He died in Calcutta in 1777. The King, in a private letter to Lord North, notices his death with great feeling.--Sir Thomas Clavering voted generally with the Opposition. The King regarded his interference as a favour to himself personally, and was very desirous that Lord North should let him know that his conduct was appreciated.--(Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal.)--E.

[75] The Ministry showed great indecision in the affair of the remonstrance. Vigorous efforts, indeed, had been made to defeat it in the City; and when these failed, the most serious perplexity followed. The Attorney-General’s opinion was asked whether the remonstrance was impeachable, but no answer could be obtained from him.--(Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal.--Mr. Calcraft’s letter in Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 430.) Frequent communications passed between the King and Lord North on the subject. I shall only extract the following:--“I shall be glad to hear what precedents you have got. I continue of opinion that an answer must be given to the remonstrance, and that, unless the instances are very similar of having directed a certain number to attend, it would in every way be best to receive them on the throne.”--(The King’s Letter to Lord North, MS., March 11.)--E.

[76] Sir Edward Blackett, Bart., of Matson Hall, M.P. for Northumberland. He died in 1804, at the great age of eighty-five. Lord Collingwood, who had married his niece, describes him as “one of the kindest and most benevolent of men.”--(Correspondence and Memoirs of Lord Collingwood, vol. i. p. 129.)--E.

[77] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 516–45. It is to be regretted that he has taken no notice of Dunning’s speech. Burke makes the greatest figure in the report, but Lord North is also very able.--E.

[78] Henry Herbert, afterwards created Lord Portchester, [and in 1793 Earl of Caernarvon. He was Master of the Horse in 1806. He died in 1811. The present Earl is his grandson.--E.]

[79] This debate took place on the 4th of February; it is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 435.--E.

[80] The debate is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 505. The argument was all on one side, little being urged against the bill deserving of serious refutation. The measure had the good fortune to receive very general approbation out of the House, and by many it was regarded as giving its author an incontestable claim to the gratitude of his country. How far all this commendation was genuine, is another question. It has of later days been doubted whether the Grenville Act has not been productive of more harm than good. It certainly increased the number of petitions, without diminishing the expense of prosecuting them, and any improvement it may have effected in the tribunal for trying them was very short lived. As long as political parties were split into several sections, the election committees preserved a decent impartiality; but from the time that only two great parties were recognised in the State, all the evils revived which it had been the object of the Act to extirpate. Such gross injustice was committed as at length to rouse public indignation, and after much discussion in the House the Committees were again essentially reformed by a recent Act. This measure was framed with care and good intentions; but some of the decisions to which it has given rise are too startling for it to be yet recognised as a successful piece of legislation.--E.

[81] Barré might have added, that Grenville had fallen because he was not influenced by Lord Bute, but had been at enmity with him, and turned out his brother Mackenzie; and that Dowdeswell had fallen from the same cause, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord Rockingham, who was also an enemy to Lord Bute. Fourteen years after the period here treated, viz., in 1783–4, _the secret influence_ was no longer secret; the Duke of Portland’s Administration was openly overturned by the exertion of that influence, and, which is still more remarkable, the eldest son of the very Mr. Grenville here mentioned was the tool employed by Jenkinson (here also in question) and the secret cabal of the King. Be it remembered, too, that Mr. Grenville’s bill which for thirteen years had been carried into constant execution with strict justice and applause, was impeached in the first instance of the new Parliament of 1784, chosen in consequence of that secret influence, and upon occasion of the scrutiny for the Westminster election, which violation was practised by Mr. William Pitt, the second son of Lord Chatham, in which he was supported by Mr. William Grenville, the second son of Mr. George Grenville, author of the bill.

[82] Sir Robert Bernard, Bart., of Brampton Park, Hunts. He was a bustling’ eager politician, and, like Sawbridge and others of the same extreme principles, had found more scope for his activity in London than his own county. He died without issue in 1789, having left his estates to his nephew, Robert Sparrow, Esq., afterwards Brigadier-General Bernard Sparrow, from whom they have descended to the Duchess of Manchester--the General’s only surviving child.--E.

[83] Lord Sandys had been placed at the Board of Trade on the King’s accession in 1760 (supra, vol. i. p. 44), when the _comprehensive_ principle on which the Government was formed brought men of very different political opinions into office. He seems to have regarded his post as a sinecure--as indeed it in a great measure became by the withdrawal of the West Indies from the department. He left an only son, on whose death the title became extinct.--E.

[84] For an account of Lord Ligonier see supra, vol. i. p. 208, note.--E.

[85] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 552.--E.

[86] This paragraph, from the words _and was disabled_, was added in July 1784.

[87] Burke himself.

[88] Observations on a pamphlet entitled “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents,” by Catherine Macaulay, 8vo., price 2_s._

“Assume a virtue if you have it not.”

This tract has long since sunk into oblivion; no copy of it is to be found even in the British Museum, and I have searched for it in vain in other large repositories of ephemeral literature. As far as can be inferred from the extracts and criticism in contemporary periodicals, Mrs. Macaulay’s great panacea for the removal of all national grievances consisted of short Parliaments, with the additional security of members being made incapable of re-election under a certain number of years. This arrangement the writer predicted would do away with the evils generally considered to attach to frequent elections, “so that the violent contentions for seats in Parliament, both on the side of Government and of individuals, would sink into the quiet coolness of nominations for parish officers.”--She overlooked the effect of such a system on the character of the House, and the experience of France seems to prove that it would lead to the election of few persons above the calibre of parish officers.

The style and spirit of the work seem to be fairly represented in the following extract:--“The wicked system of policy set on foot by the leaders of the revolutionists in the reign of King William, and which proceeded perhaps more from fear of personal safety than from any very material intent against their country, was thoroughly completed under the Administration of their sons. But whilst this State faction, who called themselves Whigs, but who in reality were as much the destructive, though concealed, enemies of public liberty as were its more generous because more avowed adversaries, the Tories, whilst they were erecting their batteries against those they termed inveterate Jacobites and prejudiced republicans, it never came into their heads that they were ruining their own importance, and consequently rendering the Crown strong enough to set all parties at defiance, to put them on their good behaviour, and to treat them with that contempt which is natural to a Sovereign in the plenitude of independent power.”--E.

[89] Lord North, like other Prime Ministers, never attended committees of elections. Mackenzie being pushed on a Scotch election which he favoured, sent for Lord North late in the evening (at this very time) to vote, though he had not heard the cause--and yet they were beaten.

[90] Brummell, chief clerk in the Treasury; the laborious and faithful servant, and not the master of Lord North.--E.

[91] Mrs. Anne Pitt, Lady Bute’s friend, offered Lord Villiers, her relation and son of the Countess of Grandison, that the Princess of Wales should procure for him an English Peerage, if he would marry one of Lord Bute’s daughters. This was in June 1771. I had it from Lord Villiers himself, who married a daughter of Lord Hertford, my first cousin. I have changed my opinion, I confess, various times on the subject of Lord Bute’s favour with the King; but this I take to have been the truth. From the death of her husband the Princess Dowager had the sole influence over her son, and introduced Lord Bute into his confidence; but I believe that even before his accession the King was weary both of his mother and of her favourite, and wanted to, and did early shake off much of that influence. After Lord Bute’s resignation, his credit declined still more, and Lord Bute certainly grew disgusted, though he still retained authority enough over the King to be consulted, or to force himself into a share of the counsels that changed so many Ministries till after Lord Chatham’s last Administration. Lord Bute’s pride was offended at the wane of his power; and on his last return from abroad, the King complained to the Duke of Gloucester that _the fellow_ (that was the term) had not once paid his duty to him. I have doubted whether that coolness was not affected; yet it was carrying dissimulation far indeed, and unnecessarily, if acted to his favourite brother, then living in the palace with him, in his confidence, not hostile to Bute, nor then likely to report the communication. Such solemn declarations had indeed been made both by the King and Bute that they never saw each other in private, that those visits could not be frequent, and the King no doubt was glad of that pretext for avoiding an irksome dictator. Afterwards, the engrossing ambition of Bute’s son, Lord Mount Stewart, was hurt at the proscription of his father; and whenever his own suits were denied he broke out publicly, and frequently quarrelled with Lord North, who would not have thwarted his views had the King countenanced them; yet as Lord Mount Stewart generally carried his points at last, it is probable that Bute had been trusted too deeply to make it safe totally to break with him. However, his credit was so small that, towards the end of the American war, Mackenzie, through whom the intercourse was chiefly carried on, retired to Scotland, and for some time came rarely to London. But in the year 1783 Bute again saw the King often, though very privately; and though Lord Mount Stewart warmly and loudly espoused the party of Charles Fox, Mackenzie adhered to the King; and Lord Bute owned that though he thought Mr. Fox the only man who could save this country, he loved the King so much that he could not resist his Majesty’s entreaties to support him.

If I have accounted rightly for so great a mystery as whether Lord Bute had an ascendant or not from the time of his ceasing to be openly Prime Minister, I might be asked, Who then had real influence with the King, for his subsequent Ministers indubitably had not?--I should answer readily, Jenkinson. He was the sole confidant of the King; and having been the creature of Bute, might choose prudentially not to incense his old patrons but to keep him in play enough to divert the public eye from himself; and thence, I conclude, mediated now and then for favours for Lord Bute’s friends, and despised his intellects too much to apprehend his recovery of credit. Lord Mansfield no doubt frequently, when his timidity would suffer him, was consulted and gave advice, and especially was deep in the plan of the American war; and though the King’s views and plans were commonly as pestilent to his own interest as to his people, yet as they were often artfully conducted, he and Bute were too ignorant and too incapable to have digested the measures; and therefore, as nobody else enjoyed the royal confidence, there can be no doubt but Jenkinson was the director or agent of all his Majesty’s secret counsels. Jenkinson was able, shrewd, timid, cautious, and dark; and much fitter to suggest and digest measures than to execute them. His appearance was abject; his countenance betrayed a consciousness of secret guile; and though his ambition and rapacity were insatiate, his demeanour exhibited such a want of spirit, that had he stood forth as Prime Minister, which he really was, his very look would have encouraged opposition; for who can revere authority which seems to confess itself improperly placed, and ashamed of its own awkwardly assumed importance!

[92] William Murray, Lord Mansfield.

[93] Henry Fox, first Lord Holland.

[94] Mr. Fox wrote an account of his having given that advice to his friend Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, then at his seat in Monmouthshire. Sir Charles dying, his papers fell into the hands of his elder brother, who was a very dirty fellow, and who, quarrelling with Mr. Fox, betrayed that letter to the Princess Dowager. When Mr. Fox undertook the support of the peace of Paris for Lord Bute in 1763, he was promised an Earldom, but never could obtain it.

[95] The incapacity of that Administration, on which I have said so much, has been laid open to the public, and confirmed by the Diary of Lord Melcombe, published in 1784. Lord Melcombe seems to have been ignorant of great part of the affair of Fawcett, and to have received little information on it but from the Princess or those most concerned to suppress the truth. Indeed his Diary is often obscure, and, as being written only with a view to himself, he seldom details or explains either debates or events, if he had nothing to do in them, or did not attend their commencement or conclusion in the House of Commons. Yet as far as it goes his Diary is most uncommonly authentic; and as it is so very disgraceful to himself we cannot doubt but he believed what he wrote to be true. Where he and I write on the same passages we shall be found to agree, though we never had any connection, were of very different principles, and received our information from as different sources. My whole account of the reign of George the Second was given about twenty years before I saw Lord Melcombe’s Diary, or knew it existed; nor did I ever see it till published.

[96] Princess Amelie told me in October 1783 that the Duchess of Newcastle sent Lady Sophia Egerton to her, the Princess, to beg her to be for the execution of Admiral Byng; “They thought,” added the Princess, “that unless he was put to death, Lord Anson could not be at the head of the Admiralty; indeed,” added her Royal Highness, “I was already for it: the officers would never have fought if he had not been executed.” Am I in the wrong to speak of that act as shocking, when such means and arts were employed to take away a life, and for such a reason as the interest of Lord Anson?

[97] The fourth Duke.

[98] Burke’s Works, vol. ii. p. 340.--There is room for ascribing the severity of Walpole’s criticism on these passages to the application of which they are susceptible to the conduct of Conway. Burke is very likely to have had him in mind when he dwelt on the suspicion that necessarily attaches to politicians who separate themselves from men with whom they had always before acted, on grounds which do not come under the denomination of “leading principles in government.” In common with the leaders of Rockingham’s party, he deeply resented Conway’s refusal to break up the Ministry in 1767.--(See Burke’s Correspondence, vol. i. passim.)--E.

[99] Cavendish’s report of this debate (vol. ii. p. 7) contains little beyond the speech of Governor Pownall, of which no doubt the worthy Governor was himself the reporter.--E.

[100] When Beckford received an account of the magnificent seat he had built at Fonthill being burnt down, he only wrote to his steward, “Let it be rebuilt!” Lord Holland’s youngest son being ill, and Beckford inquiring after him, Lord Holland said he had sent him to Richmond for the air; Beckford cried out, “Oh! Richmond is the worst air in the world; I lost twelve natural children there last year!”

[101] Lord Mansfield’s words were,--“I have always understood, and take it to be clearly settled, that evidence of a public sale, or public exposing to sale in the shop by the servant, or anybody in the house or shop, though there was no privity or concurrence in the master, is sufficient evidence to convict him, unless he proves the contrary, or that there was some trick or collusion.”--(“Trial of John Almon,” 8vo., London, 1770.)--The motion for the new trial was made on the 27th of June following, on the ground that the master was not liable for the acts of his servant in _a criminal case_, where his privity was not proved. The motion was refused. The Court then expressed an unanimous opinion that the pamphlet being bought in the shop of a common known bookseller, purporting on its title-page to be printed for him, is a sufficient _primâ facie_ evidence of its being published by him, _not indeed conclusive, because he might have contradicted it, if the facts would have borne it, by contrary evidence_.--(Burrows’s Reports, vol. v. p. 2686.) This is not less liberal than the present proof of publication recognised by the courts of law; and it is generally understood that nothing short of proof of interference, if not of absolute _prohibition_ by the bookseller would now be received. Abominable as the law of libel might be, it seems to have been correctly laid down by Lord Mansfield. Fifty years earlier Almon would have been pilloried, and probably whipped. In 1759, Mr. Beardmore, the Under Sheriff, was fined fifty shillings, and imprisoned two months, for pillorying Dr. Shebbeare moderately. (Burrows’s Reports, vol. ii. p. 752.) Almon and the Doctor seem to have been much upon a par in point of respectability.--E.

[102] All that Lord Mansfield did, was to receive the verdict of the jury at his own house. There was not the slightest impropriety in this. It is still a common practice on the circuit for the verdict to be returned at the judge’s lodgings; and the old writers say, that if a jury will not agree, the judge may carry them round the circuit in a cart.--(Some account of this trial is given in the notes to Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 354.)--E.

[103] The Comte de Guines had been for some years Ambassador at Berlin--a post he procured through the intervention of Madame Montesson, preparatory to her marriage to the Duc d’Orleans. He belonged to the school of Choiseul, Richelieu, Soubize, and Lauzun. His embassy to London involved him in a very unpleasant suit with his secretary, La Forte, who, having lost large sums in stock-jobbing speculations during the excitement caused by the expected war with Spain on account of the Falkland Islands, declared himself bankrupt, and endeavoured to prove that he had been the agent of M. de Guines in these speculations. The action was eventually decided in the Ambassador’s favour, but only after long litigation, in the course of which it was difficult to avert strong suspicions of the truth of the charge.--(Flassan’s Diplomatie Française, vol. v. p. 54.)--M. de Guines emigrated during the Revolution, and died in 1806, aged seventy-one.--(See more of him in Thiebault’s Frederic the Second, and the Mémoires de Madame de Genlis, vol. i. p. 252, seqq. and vol. ii. p. 40.)--E.

[104] More of this trial may be seen in Woodfall’s Junius, note, vol. ii. p. 153, and the Annual Register for 1770, p. 100–108, &c. A most disgraceful affair it was to all parties concerned, except the King.--E.

[105] This letter being too long for a note is inserted in the Appendix.--(See the reference to it in the Table of Contents.)--E.

[106] The spirit and talent which he showed in these altercations with the Livery, contributed to raise him to the Bench. He died Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in 1799, in his sixty-fifth year. His decisions are still cited with respect. The trial of Horne Tooke is the only instance where he seems, by common consent, to have made a poor figure.--E.

[107] On the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland.

[108] No lines were ever more apposite than the following of Dr. Young to Lord Granby:--

“Of boasting more than of a bomb afraid, A soldier should be modest as a maid.”

[109]

“---- Granby stands without a flaw; At least, each fault he did possess Rose _from some virtue in excess_. Pierc’d by the piteous tale of grief, When wretches sought of him relief, His eyes large drops of pearl distilling, He’d give--till left without a shilling! What most his manly heart-strings tore, Was, when he felt, and found no more.”

_Poem by Major Henry Waller, in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September, 1784._

[110] John Calcraft.

[111] The King no doubt regarded his promise to a young courtier absolved by the latter becoming a politician, and entering into active opposition. It is extraordinary, too, that the Duke should not have been acquainted with the promise made to Conway. That promise the King certainly kept in the most honourable manner. In a letter to Lord North of the 1st of October, his Majesty says, “You will hear of applications for the royal regiment of Horse Guards on the death of Lord Granby. I therefore tell you that General Conway, when Secretary, and on his resignation, had a promise of them. I therefore shall immediately send to Lord Barrington to make out the notification.”--(King’s MS. Letters to Lord North.)--E.

[112] Lord Mansfield had recommended the King to take this course, which his Majesty declined to do, on the ground that it would be construed both by the Courts of Madrid and Versailles as indicative of a resolution to accommodate the dispute at all events.--(King’s Letter to Lord North, 9th November.)--E.

[113] This is confirmed by the King’s correspondence with Lord North.--E.

[114] He was feared by all the leading men in the House, even by Mr. Pitt, who frankly told the King, during the negotiations in 1765, which ended in the admission of the Rockingham party into office, that, without Mr. Grenville, he saw nothing in the Treasury either solid or substantial; (see also _supra_, vol. ii. p. 191). His knowledge, in revenue matters particularly, made him most formidable in Opposition; (Sir Gilbert Elliot’s MS. Journal.) Mr. Fox did not entertain an equally high opinion of him, and used, indeed, to speak slightingly, both of his knowledge and abilities; but Mr. Fox was a very young man when he knew Mr. Grenville, and they were not only, in all respects, very unlike, but the general turn of Mr. Fox’s mind would make him view Mr. Grenville’s defects in an exaggerated light, and many circumstances, not the least being the disagreement between Lord Holland and Mr. Grenville, combined to place them on far from a friendly footing.--E.

[115] Walpole’s suspicions of Lord Barrington’s motives are probably correct. The King (as the editor has reason to believe) always felt great unwillingness to trust the command of the army to any officer taking a prominent part in politics. His notion was that the army ought to be entirely in the hands of the Crown. This must have been the ground of his objection to the appointment of Conway. Lord Barrington’s declaration was certainly most injudicious, but it was provoked, not so much by his zeal to please the King, as by the taunts of Colonel Barré. The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 37. The Government seem to have had the best of the argument.--E.

[116] See more of Brass Crosby _infra_. He rivalled Wilkes in civic popularity.--E.

[117] Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 54.--E.

[118] Lord Hillsborough was described by Walpole, some years before, as “a young man of great honour and merit, remarkably nice in weighing whatever cause he was to vote in, and excellent at setting off his reasons, if the cause was at all tragic, by a solemnity in his voice and manner that made much impression on his hearers.”--(Memoirs of George the Second, vol. i. p. 70.)--With such qualifications as a character for independence and some proficiency in public speaking, he was able to render the Ministers essential service, and, in return, they admitted him into their counsels, where he was believed to exercise considerable influence. Lord Holland courted him, and he was esteemed by Mr. Pitt. At length, in 1763, he accepted the post of First Lord of Trade and Plantations, and in 1768, as has been already mentioned, became Secretary of State. He did not maintain in office the reputation he had acquired out of it. Although he made, at times, a tolerable set speech, he proved an imprudent, and by no means effective debater. In the Cabinet he attached himself to the Court party, and gave the most determined opposition to the concessions to America, recommended by the Duke of Grafton and Lord Camden, both of whom charged him personally with exasperating the unhappy differences between the two countries by the course he took with respect to his circular letter of May, 1769. He was less to blame in the debate on the Falkland Islands than Walpole supposes, for the recent publication of Mr. Harris’s dispatches (Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i. p. 63) shows that he did not overrate the pacific disposition of the Spanish Court. In Irish politics he always took an active part, and was one of the first statesmen who sought to promote the Union. Several useful institutions in Ireland owed their origin or prosperity to his vigorous support. He also set a valuable example to other Irish landlords, by his improvements on his estates in Downshire. In 1772 he was made Earl of Hillsborough, and in 1793 he obtained from Mr. Pitt an Irish Marquisate (of Downshire). He died in 1793.--E.

[119] The report of this debate occupies more than thirty pages in Cavendish, vol. ii. pp. 57–88. The speeches were of a discursive character.--E.

[120] The debate is given by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 89. It turned more on the law of libel as administered in the recent trials of Rex _v._ Almon than on the specific subject of the motion. The speeches of Mr. Burke and Mr. Serjeant Glynn may still be read with interest.--E.

[121] Lord Egmont united qualifications which seldom fail to raise their fortunate possessor to the highest offices in a constitutional government. He was excelled by few of his time as a public speaker, by none as a political writer. His great talent was said to lie in indefatigable application, and yet he delighted in popular excitement, which he could direct with consummate skill, and with courage that proved equal to any emergency. The effect, however, of these gifts was marred by a perversion of judgment which led him both into gross absurdities, and the most culpable inconsistencies. When scarce a man, Walpole says, he had a scheme of assembling the Jews and making himself their King.--(Memoires of George the Second, vol. i. p. 30.)--It is more certain that he regarded the restoration of feudal tenures as the best security for the liberty and welfare of the people! After having been the idol and the leader of mobs, he became the obsequious follower of Lord Bute, and, although a passionate admirer of fame, he sought no result from his political exertions beyond places, titles, and sinecures. His mansion in Somersetshire, a monument of his extraordinary predilection for the middle ages, was pulled down only a few years ago. Walpole has given his character in the Memoires of George the Second, vol. ii. p. 32, which is illustrated by some amusing anecdotes in a letter to Sir Horace Mann (Letters, vol. ii. p. 260).--E.

[122] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1301.--E.

[123] This motion arose out of the debate on the power of the Attorney-General to file informations _ex officio_. The able speeches made by Serjeant Glynn and Burke forcibly exposed the injustice of the law of libel, as administered by Lord Mansfield in the recent trials, and supplied many of the arguments which were afterwards so effectually used in procuring the alteration of the law by Lord Camden and Mr. Fox (Cavendish vol. ii. p. 89, seqq.--E.)

[124] This is one of the few instances in which Serjeant Glynn appears to disadvantage. No doubt he felt strongly the wrongs of the Colonists, and shared with Lord Chatham and other leading statesmen of the day, a most unfavorable opinion of the Parliament. No personal considerations influenced him. He was as little tainted by the political as by the moral profligacy of Wilkes. Few of his speeches in Parliament have been preserved, but all are in an elevated tone, and the candour and moderation which distinguish them are not less remarkable than their talent and intrepidity. In these, as in many other respects, he bore a strong resemblance to Sir Samuel Romilly. It is to be regretted that few particulars can now be collected of this valuable man. He belonged to a Cornish family, once settled at a seat of the same name, now the property of Lord Vivian. His practice at the bar was very considerable. Not only did he argue most of the political cases of the day, but it appears, from Mr. Wilson’s and the other contemporary reports, that he had a large share of the general business. He succeeded Mr. Eyre as Recorder of London in 1772, when the salary of the office was raised from 800_l._ to 1000_l._ a-year, as a mark of respect towards him. He died in middle life, on the 16th September, 1779.--E.

[125] This confession is very memorable. The subsequent behaviour of the Court leaves strong room to suspect that instead of profiting of the favourable disposition of the Colonies by temperate measures, the Court hurried into the succeeding war, and wished to provoke the Colonies to unite, that all might be treated as rebels and conquered. The Ministers did succeed in the provocation, but not in the conquest.

[126] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1319.--E.

[127] Cavendish’s Debates, vol. ii. p. 149.--E.

[128] Parliamentary History, vol. xvi p. 1321.--E.

[129] I suspect that Lord Rockingham, whose aunt Lord Mansfield had married, and to whom Lord Mansfield always paid court, meant to save him, though through this whole reign Lord Mansfield had constantly laboured to sap that great palladium of our liberties, juries. As the House of Lords would probably have protected Lord Mansfield, perhaps his panic was a curb to him; whereas an exculpation might have encouraged him. Still the trimming conduct of Lord Rockingham, and Lord Camden, and Lord Chatham was inexcusable.

[130] Lord Camden, with more apparent firmness than Lord Mansfield, was neither a brave nor a steady man; though having taken the better side, the defence of the Constitution, he was not reduced to the artifices and terrors of the Chief Justice. It was but rarely that Lord Camden took a warm and active part, but often absented himself from the House when he should have stood forth. He told me himself that he forbore attending private causes in the House lest he should hurt the side he supported by Lord Mansfield’s carrying the majority against the party defended by Lord Camden, merely from enmity to him. If this tenderness was well founded, how iniquitous was his antagonist! I do believe that though their hatred was reciprocal, Lord Camden feared the abilities and superior knowledge of his antagonist; and as Lord Camden was a proud man, he could not bear inferiority. As even Lord Chatham did not retain the deference for him he expected and deserved, their friendship declined almost to annihilation. The Duke of Grafton and Lord Shelburne, though still much more unjustifiably, slighted him too; and a series of those neglects concurred to throw Lord Camden, towards the end of his life, into a situation that did not raise his character, nor was even agreeable to his opinion, for the moment before he joined Mr. Pitt in 1784, he had declared his sentiments of Mr. Fox’s predominant abilities.

[131] This was the case of Tothill _v._ Pitt, of which the details are given in Maddock’s Reports, vol. i. p. 488; Dicken’s Reports, p. 431; Brown’s Parliamentary Cases, p. 453. It related to the property of a Mr. Tothill, which had come to Sir William Pynsent, as the legatee and executor of his daughter, to whom it had been bequeathed by Mr. Tothill. The decision of the Lords was right, and it restored the decree of Sir Thomas Sewell, the Master of the Rolls, a lawyer whose authority stood much higher than that of the Lord Commissioners.--E.

[132] The debate on Lord George Germaine’s motion is reported in Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 160–172. One result of the quarrel between the Houses was the exclusion of strangers from both, during the remainder of the session. The public, therefore, was kept in ignorance of all parliamentary proceedings that were not made known by the members of either House.--E.

[133] Governor Johnstone’s subsequent actions were far from setting his character in a better light. During half the American war he voted in Parliament as condemning it, and in private paid great court to the Duke of Richmond as a principal opponent; not without the Duke’s being cautioned by his friends, who suspected Johnstone for an allowed spy of the Court,--a jealousy that seemed well founded, as Johnstone on a sudden was appointed by the Minister one of the commissioners to treat for peace with America. In that department he augmented the suspicion of his double-dealing, but without adding any credit to his judgment. Soon after he was entrusted, as Commodore, with five ships, which he boasted should effect the most desperate service--but effected nothing; and he terminated his naval campaign with such flagrant tyranny and injustice to one of his captains, whom he also despatched to the East Indies in hopes of his complaints, that a court of law, on the poor gentleman’s return, gave him damages to the amount of some thousand pounds; and Johnstone appealing from the verdict, all he obtained was an increase of his fine: however, on another appeal, the sentence was set aside.

[134] As these Memoirs will not be continued, it may be worth while to give a short abstract of the rest of Lord George’s life. Though in Opposition, he kept a door open for his return to Court without his associates, by not joining them against the American war. When that war grew more and more hopeless, Lord George was offered to undertake that province, and most injudiciously accepted it. This was the more surprising to _me_, as, besides his having retrieved his character by the affair with Johnstone, and acquired a large fortune from Lady Elizabeth Germaine, with the additional favourable circumstance of changing his name, whence his sons, if dropping that of Sackville, might avoid great part of the disgrace that had fallen on their father, he himself not three years before, in a conversation, in which he had given me many instances of the King’s duplicity, had said to me, “_Sir, whoever lives to see the end of this reign, will see one of the most unfortunate that ever was in England!_” The position of the American war certainly countenanced his prediction. Yet his native ambition, or the vanity of supposing that he could give a new turn to affairs, overpowered his judgment, and shut his eyes on the torrent of abuse that would again be let loose against him--and was. He did recommence his career with great spirit and activity, but with no success at all; and it was only in his deportment that he did show spirit. In Parliament he was browbeaten by daily insults; and his former parts so entirely forsook him, that younger men, who had not seen his outset, would not believe what was attested to them of his precedent abilities. Disappointed of the glory he had promised to himself, and quarrelling with Lord Sandwich, the head of the Admiralty, who counteracted or would not concur in his plans, Lord George relaxed, and finding his associates inclined to sacrifice him as a scapegoat (though they could not save their own places), he yielded to the storm, and was so far fortunate, that being the first victim before the general crash, he made terms for himself, and retired into the House of Lords with a Viscount’s coronet; yet even that lucky retreat could not be obtained without a new, and most cruel, and unprecedented insult. The Marquis of Caermarthen objected to his admission into the House of Lords on the old sentence of the court martial. What heightened the flagrancy of that attack on the foundation of so almost obsolete a stigma was, that Lord Caermarthen had actually been in the King’s service with Lord George while recently Secretary of State. Lord Caermarthen made himself odious; and Lord George found at least that mankind were not so abandoned as to enjoy such wanton malevolence.

Lord George, become Viscount Sackville, died in the autumn of 1785, of a short illness, and in a manner that once more did him honour. He spoke of the bitter scenes through which he had passed, and with great firmness declared how resigned he was to death. Of Prince Ferdinand he spoke with singular candour; said his Highness had undone him from resentment; yet was so great a man, that he not only forgave but admired him. General Sloper, his enemy, he said, was a very black man; for Lord Caermarthen, he was so weak, that he felt nothing for him but contempt. It was remarkable that Lord Caermarthen, moderate as his abilities were, disgustful as his assault on Lord Sackville had been, and though disliked by the King, was by the last collision of parties become at that very moment Secretary of State.

[A long note on the character of Lord George Sackville is also given by Walpole in the Memoirs of George the Second (vol. ii. p. 432). He evidently bore that nobleman no good will, and falls in the course of his remarks into some inconsistencies, which, as Lord Holland remarks, “it would be difficult to explain, if it were any part of the duty of an editor to explain the contradictions of an author.” A well-written and interesting, though partial, account of Lord George is contained in the Memoirs of his friend and secretary, Richard Cumberland. Many additional and curious particulars have been collected by Mr. Coventry in that ingenious work, “Critical Enquiry regarding the real Author of Junius, proving them to have been written by Lord Viscount Sackville.”--E.]

[135] He ran away with a natural daughter of Lord Baltimore, supposed to be of weak understanding, and who, besides, was almost a child.--E.

[136] Vide the character of Lord Weymouth, supra vol. ii. pp. 176, 177, and vol. iii. pp. 135, 136.--E.

[137] A very different account of this transaction is given in the Appendix, from the Memoirs of the Duke of Grafton, and no doubt it is the true one.--E.

[138] He had prevailed on Grimaldi to attempt making peace; but the latter having the fate of Squillace before his eyes, would not take it on himself, but advised his master to call the Castilians to council. They, persuaded that a commercial nation, as England was, would not make war for a rock, exhorted the King to maintain his point of honour. D’Aranda, his favourite, agreed with the Castilians; but though the King, who, from the time he was King of Naples, and had been humbled into a neutrality by our navy, hated this country, yet he was at that moment so much influenced by Grimaldi, that he rose abruptly and broke up the council. [The King, independently of Grimaldi, was personally inclined to come to an accommodation with England _at almost any rate_.--(Malmesbury Dispatches, vol. ii. p. 66.)--E.]

[139] The Comte du Châtelet (Choiseul’s friend), when Ambassador in England, told me that the Duc de Choiseul, though knowing he himself should be the successor, gave the Cardinal de Bernis warning of his approaching fall; but was not credited.

[140] The Duchesse de Grammont, sister of Choiseul, and the Princesse de Beauvau, her friend.

[141] Louis Philippeaux, created Duc de la Vrillière--the brother-in-law of Maurepas--a willing instrument of oppression, being licentious, selfish, and unprincipled, like too many of his colleagues. He died childless, in 1777, in his seventy-third year.--E.

[142] See some account of La Chalotais, supra, vol. ii. p. 246.

[143] Yet that was, in fact, only the ostensible weight that seemed to turn the scale. The Cabal were willing to let the Prince have the apparent credit of deciding his master. They had long been urging him to dismiss Choiseul; but they did not wish that a measure distasteful to the public should be rendered more so by their removing him to prevent a war with England. The Administration that succeeded Choiseul, immediately acted upon principles so consentaneous to those of the Court of London, namely, by exalting the prerogative, and by destruction of the Parliaments, that it was impossible but the two Courts should grow cordial friends; and so they continued to the death of Louis Quinze.

[144] The King ordered La Vrillière to say that it was out of regard to the Duchesse de Choiseul that he did not send the Duke farther off.

[145] The wife and the sister pretended to make a formal reconciliation, declaring that they gave up their own resentments that they might not disturb the Duke’s retirement and tranquillity. That Madame de Choiseul could not, however, forgive the injuries and insults she had received, appeared fifteen years afterwards; for, retiring into a convent on the Duke’s death, and Madame de Grammont, who was a large woman, and probably grown more corpulent, going to visit her, Madame de Choiseul excused herself from seeing her, on pretence that the conventual stairs were so narrow that Madame de Grammont would have difficulty to ascend them.

[146] See a character of the Duc de Choiseul, supra, vol. ii. p. 243.--E.

[147] Lord Sandwich has received similar praise, as an efficient public servant, from Mr. Butler, a very acute and well-informed writer, who lived on terms of intimacy with him, and was in every respect qualified to form a just opinion of his merits. “Lord Sandwich might serve as a model for a man of business. He rose early, and till a late dinner dedicated his whole time to business; he was very methodical; slow, not wearisome; cautious, not suspicious; rather a man of sense than a man of talent; he had much real good nature; his promises might be relied on. His manners partook of the old Court, and he possessed in a singular degree the art of attaching persons of every rank to him. Few houses were more agreeable or instructive than his Lordship’s; it was filled with rank, beauty, and talent, and every one was at ease. He professed to be fond of music, and musicians flocked to him; he was the soul of the Catch Club, and one of the Directors of the Concert of Ancient Music, but (which is the case with more than one noble, and more than one gentle amateur) he had not the least real ear for music, and was equally insensible of harmony and melody.”--(Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 74.)

[148] The spirit shown by the Duke of Bedford during his last illness is very remarkable; notwithstanding the languor and depression attendant on the complaint under which he laboured, he neglected no part of his business, either public or private. He spoke several times in the Lords during the session of 1770; he attended with his usual regularity the meetings of the various institutions of which he was a member; he superintended the management of his extensive estates, and yet all the while never allowing himself to lose the amusements which he enjoyed whilst in health. Some of the notices in his Journal are in this respect very characteristic.

“31st March.--At the Trinity House for the election of Lord Weymouth to succeed the late Lord Winchelsea. Dined at the King’s Arms. Went to the opera--La Constanza di Rossinello--a bad one. Supped at Mr. Rigby’s in lieu of the Club, the Waldegraves being out of town.

“4th April.--I went to Streatham, and in Charrington’s farm, Tooting, I marked three hundred and forty-four trees, chiefly elm,--many of them large ones. I came home to dinner; Lord and Lady Carlisle then dined with us. In the evening I went to Lady Holderness’s.”--(Appendix to Cavendish’s Debates, vol. i. p. 624.)

In the collection of papers at Woburn are some of his letters written within a month of his death. One is an application to Lord Barrington on behalf of a French officer whom he considered it a point of honour to provide for. Neither the style nor tone is that of a dying man; he says, “It seems next to impossible to conceive that any fresh subterfuge can be found to avoid giving Captain Gualy the reasonable request I have made in his favour, especially considering the offer I have made to compensate to any officer, out of my own pocket, that might be aggrieved by it, such loss as he shall sustain by such promotion, more especially considering that this gentleman is kinsman and namesake of Madame de Choiseul, and a man of credit and character. Should it be so, I wish to have it explicitly of your Lordship, that I may inform that lady that I have entirely lost all credit at my own Court, and that the King’s Ministers pay no regard to my solicitations, though ever so just and reasonable, notwithstanding the services I may venture to assert that I did my country in negotiating and signing the last peace, &c.” Whatever might have been the Duke’s errors of judgment, he was a high-minded warm-hearted man, of great energy of character and capacity for business.--E.

[149] Mr. Justice Bathurst was the second son of Allen, the first Lord Bathurst, “one of the most amiable, as he was one of the most fortunate men of his age,” immortalized alike by the polished poetry of Pope and the brilliant eloquence of Burke. He had not much of his father’s gaiety and spirit. For some years he had sat on the Bench of the Common Pleas, with a fair reputation, and he had previously enjoyed a considerable practice at the Bar. A very popular and useful work, Buller’s Nisi Prius, is understood to have been compiled from his notes. In early life he had made some figure in the House of Commons as Attorney-General to the Prince, and Walpole notices him as a rising man in the Opposition.--(Walpole’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 262.)--As a Commissioner of the Great Seal he showed but moderate parts, and his appointment as Chancellor excited much surprise. It had been believed that the Seals would be offered to Mr. De Grey, as they had been in the preceding year by the Duke of Grafton; and that gentleman so perfectly expected it, that he announced himself as Lord Chancellor at a dinner of his family. On the very day following this announcement it was declared that the choice had fallen on Mr. Bathurst. He is not to be ranked among the great men who have filled this high office; his decisions are seldom cited, and indeed few of them have been preserved. It was perhaps a disadvantage to him to preside over a bar of superior talents to himself, the leaders of which were Thurlow and Wedderburne. A coolness that took place between him and Lord North furnished the King, who never liked him, with an excuse for transferring the Seals to Lord Thurlow, and he became President of the Council. He died at an advanced age in 1794.--E.

[150] When the writ for his re-election was moved, the House gave a deep groan--an unprecedented mark of dislike.

[151] See some interesting observations on Wedderburne in Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. i. p. 70–87.--E.

[152] There appears to be no authority for this statement of Walpole’s. Grimaldi, indeed, told Mr. Harris, on the latter acquainting him with his recall, that “he was sure that the moment he mentioned it to the King his Majesty would recall his Ambassador from London, when, of course, no prospect would remain of that accommodation being brought about which his Catholic Majesty had so much at heart.”--(Mr. Harris to Lord Rochford, 13th of January, 1771.)--He also declined to recognise Mr. Harris any longer as Minister, upon the pitiful plea of the absence of his credentials. Probably he at the same time wrote to Prince Masserano desiring him to expect an immediate recall. Far from the King taking such a step, he manifested his satisfaction at the arrangement in a more evident manner than Grimaldi wished, and expressed great satisfaction at the gracious manner in which Prince Masserano had been received at the British Court after signing the declaration.--(Mr. Harris’s Letter, 14th February.--Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i p. 75–6.)--E.

[153] He was afterwards Secretary of State in 1782, and in the following year concluded the preliminaries of peace with France. Some of his letters, very agreeably written, are published in Lord Malmesbury’s Correspondence. He died in 1786.--E.

[154] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 245.--Wedderburne not only voted for the motion, but supported it by a very able speech, which was answered by his colleague Thurlow (the Attorney-General). The best speech against the motion was made by Mr. Fox, who, it may be worth noticing, never altered the strong opinion which he expressed on this, as well as on other occasions, of the incapacity of Mr. Wilkes.--E.

[155] William, the sixth Lord Craven. He had succeeded to the title only in 1769. He died in 1791. His widow married the Margrave of Anspach.--E.

[156] The object of the motion was to repeal the clause which “protects such rights, titles, or claims, under any grants or letters patent from the Crown, as are prosecuted with effect, within a certain time therein (viz., in the Act) limited.” An able defence of Sir James Lowther was made by Lord North, and a still more able defence of the Duke of Portland by Dunning. The correctness of Walpole’s statement of the feelings of the Court is illustrated by the following extract from a letter of the King’s to Lord North: “11th February.--What has passed in the House of Commons this day is a fresh proof that truth, justice, and even honour are constantly to be given up when they relate to Sir James Lowther.”--(MS.)--The King’s indignation, however, was directed against what he conceived to be an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown, and did not arise from any partiality for Sir James Lowther.--E.

[157] Henry, first Duke of Newcastle of his family, and ninth Earl of Lincoln. He had separated himself from his uncle’s political friends on coming to the title. He died in 1794, aged seventy-four. The present Duke is his grandson.--E.

[158] The House nevertheless afterwards decreed against Lord Anglesea.--E.

[159] Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 311.--The King saw the difficulties of this question, though he shared the prejudices of the day in a letter to Lord North of the 21st. He says, “I have much considered this affair of the printers, and in the strongest manner recommend that every caution should be used to prevent its becoming a serious business. It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates should be put a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring such miscreants before, as it can fine as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?”--(MS.)--It is easy to smile at the King’s indignation, but the publication of the debates was not more reasonable than the publication of the list of divisions, which many warm friends of constitutional liberty, even in the present day, were disposed to regard as highly objectionable.--E.

[160] Sir George Colebrooke, Bart., an eminent merchant in the City, chairman, and for a long time a most influential director of the East India Company. He succeeded to the Baronetcy on the death of his brother, Sir James, who left two daughters--the Countess of Tankerville and Lady Aubrey. Sir George was a Whig, but he made the interests of the Company his first object in all his political connections, and in return he made his connection with the Company contribute to his political importance, which, at critical periods, when parties were nicely balanced, was found to be not inconsiderable. He had been educated at Leyden, and both wrote and spoke with spirit and ability. The failure of some extensive speculations in which he had been involved by a partner obliged his firm, in 1773, to suspend their payments, and he retired for some years to the Continent; but eventually a satisfactory arrangement was made with his creditors, and he passed the latter years of his life in ease and independence. It was during this period that he amused himself in composing his Memoirs, a work that gives a curious picture of the political intrigues of the day. He died in 1809, leaving two sons, both of whom attained high office in India. The younger, Mr. Henry Colebrooke, was a member of the Supreme Council in Bengal, a very eminent Oriental scholar, and the author of some valuable works on Hindoo law and literature. The present Baronet is his son.--E.

[161] See infra, p. 319, where Walpole expresses a more favourable opinion of the measure. The union of Lord Barrington with Lord Chatham’s friends eventually proved fatal to it; but their arguments were completely refuted by Sir Gilbert Elliot.--(Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 325.)--E.

[162] They broke the glasses of Lord Townshend’s state-coach as he passed to Parliament, and demolished Lord Annesley’s house.

[163] This case is given briefly in contemporary reports, under the title of Smith and others _v._ Lord Pomfret and wife. It had been originally heard before Lord Camden when he held the Great Seal. He directed an action at law to be brought to try the right in dispute. The verdict, as Walpole correctly states, was given against Lord Pomfret. His Lordship then applied to the Commissioners of the Great Seal, who had succeeded Lord Camden, for a new trial, which they refused. On this he appealed to the Lords, where a _new trial, and not the estate_ in question, was granted, upon some distinction taken by Lord Mansfield as to the original order for the action having been made without Lord Pomfret’s consent--a point which seems to have escaped the counsel, who had argued the case on the merits, which seem to have been on Lord Pomfret’s side, since the new trial ended in a verdict in his favour. There are some points of practice involved in the case which make it probable that the decision of the Lords would not be followed in the present day, and there is no doubt that the interference of the _lay_ Lords in the adjudication of rights of this nature was wholly unjustifiable. No similar instance has occurred during the present century,--the attendance of lay peers on appeals being regarded as a mere matter of form. The decision on the appeal rests exclusively with the _law_ peers, otherwise the appeal would be from a court of great authority to one of none at all.--E.

[164] Mr. Turner was M.P. for York, and a friend of Lord Rockingham.--E.

[165] The King wrote thus to Lord North on the 17th of March:--“If Lord Mayor and Oliver be not committed to the Tower the authority of the House of Commons is annihilated. Send Jenkinson to Lord Mansfield for his opinion of the best way of enforcing the commitment, if these people continue to disobey. You know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but now there is no retreating. The honour of the House of Commons must be supported.” (MS.)--E.

[166] In the year 1762.--See vol. i. pp. 109, 120.

[167] Then only Mr. Fox.

[168] The City’s claim to exemption from the jurisdiction of the House was founded on the restitution of their charter by King William, which had been forfeited by the Quo Warranto of Charles the Second, and which confirmed all their ancient privileges, but gave no new; and the House said they had never enjoyed such exemption.

[169] “They [the Spanish Ministers] also report that we have given a _verbal_ assurance to evacuate the Falkland Islands in the space of two months.”--(Letter from Mr. Harris to Lord Rochford, 14th February, in Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i. p. 77.)--This was probably the origin of the report so generally credited at the time, and which the Spaniards circulated as much as possible in order to save their honour. The English Ministers, however, may have stated that the Islands might soon be given up as not worth keeping, which indeed speedily happened.--E.

[170] Three millions, it was said, but undoubtedly half the number, were lost by that execrable monopoly. [Mill states that a third of the population perished.--History of British India, vol. iii. p. 431.--E.]

[171] Sir John Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, M.P. for the county of Stafford, afterwards a Major-General and Colonel of the 45th regiment. He was nephew of the Duchess of Bedford, and brother-in-law of the Duke of Grafton. He died in 1787. Lord Wrottesley is his grandson.--E.

[172] Son of James Grenville, younger brother of Lord Temple.

[173] They got his hat, and sold small pieces of it as relics and monuments of their fury.

[174] He gave a good living to Sir William Meredith’s brother, for this service.

[175] Eldest son of the Earl of Sandwich.

[176] He was a shrewd clever man, and seems to have succeeded in all he undertook. His popularity during his mayoralty obtained him a second rich widow. He died very opulent in 1793, aged sixty-five. A detailed account of him is given in the “Gentleman’s Magazine,” vol. lxiii. p. 188; and this was afterwards enlarged and printed in a 4to volume, at the expense of his widow, for private circulation. Thus he procured a place in the _Biographie Universelle_, a work which, with singular want of discrimination, leaves unnoticed some of his most distinguished contemporaries, particularly Wedderburne and De Grey.--E.

[177] Dr. Scott, Rector of Simonburn in Northumberland. Like too many divines of his day he dabbled much in political writing. He died in 1814.--E.

[178] The estimation in which Dr. Markham was held, both as Master of Westminster and as a scholar, is alone sufficient to justify his appointment. He was a personal friend of Lord Mansfield, like whom he professed Tory principles; but he was far too honest and of too high a spirit to be guilty of any unworthiness as a courtier. He owes his place in the Rolliad mainly to his friendship for Hastings, whom he loved and admired, as he also did Edmund Burke. It would be unjust to his memory to overlook that he lived on terms of affectionate regard with General Wolfe. He was by no means an exaggerated politician. He afterwards became Archbishop of York, and held that preferment for near thirty years, having died in 1807.--E.

[179] She was a daughter of Lord Pomfret, and had married the Hon. William Finch, envoy in Sweden and in Holland, second son of Lord Winchelsea who died in 1776. She was an accomplished and most estimable person.--E.

[180] He afterwards became Dean of Christchurch, a college over which he presided for many years with distinguished reputation. A bishoprick was often within his reach, but he preferred seeing that of Oxford given to his brother, who was also a man of learning and character.--E.

[181] This appeared afterwards, when he proved to have been dazzled by royal favour, or duped by royal hypocrisy. He broke out in the year ----, at a meeting of the association in Yorkshire, into so extravagant a panegyric on the King, that he exposed himself to the highest ridicule.

[182] Mademoiselle Crom of Geneva.

[183] The younger. His father, though in Parliament also, had not spoken there for many years.

[184] Brother of the Duke of Hamilton, killed by Lord Mohun in a duel in the reign of Queen Anne. Lord Selkirk was a fulsome old courtier.

[185] This was particularly applicable to Sir Gilbert Elliot, who had quitted Archibald Duke of Argyle for Mr. Pitt, Mr. Pitt for Lord Bute, Lord Bute for Mr. Grenville, and had again deserted from Mr. Grenville to Lord Bute, and was at the service of the Duke of Grafton, who neglected him, and of Lord North whom he assisted, while at the same time he had privately more weight with the King than Lord North had.

[186] The Dauphin said exultingly to the Prince of Conti, “Papa Roi est bien le maître pourtant.” The Prince replied, “Oui, Monseigneur, si fort le maître, qu’il ne tient qu’à lui de donner sa couronne à M. le Comte d’Artois, votre cadet.”

[187] See supra, p. 225.

[188] See supra, p. 284.

[189] Arthur Annesley had married Lucy, only daughter of Lord Lyttelton. His claim to the Earldom of Anglesea, was rejected by the House of Lords in England, but the Irish House of Lords recognised him as Viscount Valentia. The proceedings on his claim possess considerable interest, but still more is to be found in the contest between his father and his cousin, which suggested to Sir Walter Scott some of the incidents in Guy Mannering.--E.

[190] See the proceedings in Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 307. The gross corruption of the borough, and the improbability of any improvement, furnished a strong ground for the disfranchisement.--E.

[191] Personal abuse was carried so far in the public papers at this time, that Monsieur Francés, the French resident, received an anonymous letter, threatening him with defamation unless he should send 50_l._ to the writer. He despised the menace, and heard no more of it.

[192] See particularly Memoirs of George the Second, vol. i. p. 93.--E.

[193] The Duke of Grafton was immediately attacked by his bitter enemy, Junius; but the same paper contained a more terrible invective on the King, whom it inhumanly taxed with the murder of Mr. Yorke, for having forced him to accept the Great Seal, which occasioned his death.--[Junius, Letter l. See the Duke of Grafton’s Memoirs in the Appendix.--E.]

[194] Dr. North subsequently was preferred to the see of Winchester, which he held until his death at a very advanced age in 1820. His son, who is also in holy orders, has succeeded to the Earldom of Guilford.--E.

[195] The title of it was “The Adventures of Humphrey Clinker.” [Walpole here yields to the miserable party prejudices of his day, which pursued poor Smollett even beyond the tomb. Humphrey Clinker, as Sir Walter Scott elegantly and justly observes, “was the last, and, like music sweetest at the close, the sweetest of his compositions. It is not worth defending so excellent a work against so weak an objection.”--(Prose Works, vol. iii. p. 162.)--E.]

[196] D’Eon was afterwards allowed to be a woman, and assumed the habit.--[But see supra, vol. ii. p. 14, note.--E.]

[197] Maupeou’s character presents a remarkable contrast to that of his illustrious predecessor, D’Aguessau. He lived in obscurity from the time that he was removed from the Government, but had amassed great wealth. He died in 1792, aged sixty-eight.--E.

[198] Madame Adelaide was not less respectable than her sister Madame Victoire. The latter was the mother of the accomplished Comte de Narbonne. See Memoirs of Madame D’Arblay, vol. v. p. 371.--E.

[199] Mademoiselle Guimarre. She lodged at the Communauté de St. Joseph, Rue St. Dominique, in the same convent where lived my great friend, Madame du Deffand.

[200] Madame de la Garde.

[201] Madame Sabatin.

[202] Her first husband was the Prince of Lixin; but she herself was certainly daughter of Leopold, Duke of Lorrain, by his adored mistress, the Princess of Craon, whose twenty children all resembled the Duke, and not their supposed father, the Prince of Craon.

[203] Lord Harcourt soon afterwards went to England, though it had been a wiser step to have kept him there to make his court, when the Spanish Minister’s conduct must have prejudiced her so much against the Court of Spain; but we trusted to the pacific disposition of the new French Ministry. They kept the peace with us for the same reason that we had made it with them,--that the King might be at leisure to crush his Parliaments!

[204] The Comte de Fuentes. (See vol. i. p. 127.)

[205] The Marquis di Caraccioli, who had been Minister in England, from whence he was just arrived.

[206] The Chancellors of France do not visit Foreign Ministers, both insisting on the first visit.

[207] He dealt to the extent of 14,000_l._ a-year.

[208] He had been imprisoned for challenging Sir W. Meredith; and was a different person from Allen killed in St. George’s Fields. (Supra vol. iii. p. 325.)

[209] About the same time the Lieutenancy of Glamorganshire was refused to Lord Mount Stewart, Lord Bute’s son, for the same reason. Yet that the Favourite retained his influence with the Princess of Wales, and that she still retained some over her son, came out by the indiscretion of Mrs. Anne Pitt, privy-purse to the Princess, and intimate friend of Lady Bute. Endeavouring to persuade her cousin, the young Lord Villiers, only son of the Countess of Grandison, to marry a younger and homely daughter of Lord Bute, she engaged that if he would, the Princess Dowager would procure him an English peerage--he preferred a pretty daughter of Lord Hertford.

[210] I cannot help taking notice of a faulty expression of Bishop Burnet. He says Lord Clarendon “had too much levity of wit.” One would think he was rather speaking of the Duke of Buckingham’s buffoonery, when he carried the fire shovel and tongs to mimic the Chancellor’s mace and purse. Burnet meant Lord Clarendon’s want of judgment in venting his satiric humour too incautiously against his enemies. (Burnet’s History of His Own Time, vol. i. p. 95.) I am disposed to think that Burnet referred to Clarendon’s freedom in private, especially at his own table, for he was always of very convivial habits. This interpretation is rather strengthened by the words which follow the passage quoted, viz., “and he did not always observe the decorum of his post.”--E.

[211] Sir John afterwards received a Peerage from Mr. Pitt. He died without male issue in 1808.--E.

[212] “The Princess Dowager was a woman of strong mind. When she was very ill she would order her carriage and drive about the streets to show that she was alive. The King and Queen used to go and see her every evening at eight o’clock; but when she got worse they went at seven, pretending they mistook the hour. The night before her death they were with her from seven to nine. She kept up the conversation as usual, went to bed, and was found dead in the morning.”--(Pinkerton’s Walpoliana, vol. i. p. 65.--E.)

[213] Elliot MSS.

[214] Duke of Grafton’s MS. Memoirs.

[215] Pinkerton’s Walpoliana, vol. i. pp. 2, 3.

[216] See his works by Lord Mahon, vol. ii. p. 470.

[217] Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 162.

[218] Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Winchester, vol. ii. p. 272.

[219] Elliot MSS.

[220] A beautiful letter from the Duchess (when Lady Ossory), on the death of Lady Holland, is published in Selwyn’s Correspondence.

[221] Belsham, Discourse on the Decease of the Duke of Grafton, p. 39, _note_.

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 when the omission was obvious, and otherwise retained. Two missing closing parentheses and two missing right brackets were added.

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

In the original book, footnotes in the Chapters were identified numerically, while footnotes in the Appendix were identified symbolically. In this eBook, all footnotes are in one ascending numerical sequence.

The Table of Contents omitted the line “CHAPTER IX” and the associated date. The Transcriber added them to this eBook.

The other three volumes of this series are available at no charge from Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org):