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, (supravol. i. p. 9,) was at the request of Lord Bute, and not of Mr. Pitt, and it was sought by the formerin 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.213The 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.214Their 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 favourableopinion of Lord Bute than will be collected from this work. Hesays:—“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 ashareof 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.”215The most able character of Lord Bute, and a masterly one it is, has been drawn by Lord Chesterfield.216No 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 entitledto 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.”218He 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 Kingcertainly 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.
(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, (supravol. i. p. 9,) was at the request of Lord Bute, and not of Mr. Pitt, and it was sought by the formerin 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.214Their 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 favourableopinion of Lord Bute than will be collected from this work. Hesays:—
“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 ashareof 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.216No 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 entitledto 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.
(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.”218He 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 Kingcertainly liked him, and paid him frequent visits at Farnham Palace, after his promotion to Winchester. He died in 1781.
(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.