Chapter 19

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.72Eldest 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.]73It 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.74Colonel 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.75The 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.76Sir 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.77The 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.78Henry 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.]79This debate took place on the 4th of February; it is reported in Cavendish, vol. i. p. 435.—E.80The 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.81Barré 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 influencewas 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.82Sir 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.83Lord Sandys had been placed at the Board of Trade on the King’s accession in 1760 (supra, vol. i. p. 44), when thecomprehensiveprinciple 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.84For an account of Lord Ligonier see supra, vol. i. p. 208, note.—E.85The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 552.—E.86This paragraph, from the wordsand was disabled, was added in July 1784.87Burke himself.88Observations on a pamphlet entitled “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents,” by Catherine Macaulay, 8vo., price 2s.“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.89Lord 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.90Brummell, chief clerk in the Treasury; the laborious and faithful servant, and not the master of Lord North.—E.91Mrs. 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 thatthe 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!92William Murray, Lord Mansfield.93Henry Fox, first Lord Holland.94Mr. 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.95The 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.96Princess 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?97The fourth Duke.98Burke’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.99Cavendish’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.100When 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!”101Lord 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 ina 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 sufficientprimâ facieevidence 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 absoluteprohibitionby 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.102All 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.103The 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.104More 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.105This letter being too long for a note is inserted in the Appendix.—(See the reference to it in the Table of Contents.)—E.106The 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.107On the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland.108No 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 possessRosefrom 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, 1784.110John Calcraft.111The 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.112Lord 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.113This is confirmed by the King’s correspondence with Lord North.—E.114He 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 alsosupra, 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.115Walpole’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.116See more of Brass Crosbyinfra. He rivalled Wilkes in civic popularity.—E.117Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 54.—E.118Lord 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.119The report of this debate occupies more than thirty pages in Cavendish, vol. ii. pp. 57–88. The speeches were of a discursive character.—E.120The debate is given by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 89. It turned more on the law of libel as administered in the recent trials of Rexv.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.121Lord 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.122Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1301.—E.123This motion arose out of the debate on the power of the Attorney-General to file informationsex 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.)124This 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 800l.to 1000l.a-year, as a mark of respect towards him. He died in middle life, on the 16th September, 1779.—E.125This 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.126Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1319.—E.127Cavendish’s Debates, vol. ii. p. 149.—E.128Parliamentary History, vol. xvi p. 1321.—E.129I 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.130Lord 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.131This was the case of Tothillv.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.132The 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.133Governor 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.

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.

72Eldest 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.]

73It 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.

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.

74Colonel 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.

75The 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.

76Sir 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.

77The 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.

78Henry 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.]

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

80The 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.

81Barré 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 influencewas 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.

82Sir 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.

83Lord Sandys had been placed at the Board of Trade on the King’s accession in 1760 (supra, vol. i. p. 44), when thecomprehensiveprinciple 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.

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

85The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. i. p. 552.—E.

86This paragraph, from the wordsand was disabled, was added in July 1784.

87Burke himself.

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

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

“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.

89Lord 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.

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

91Mrs. 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 thatthe 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!

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!

92William Murray, Lord Mansfield.

93Henry Fox, first Lord Holland.

94Mr. 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.

95The 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.

96Princess 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?

97The fourth Duke.

98Burke’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.

99Cavendish’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.

100When 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!”

101Lord 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 ina 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 sufficientprimâ facieevidence 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 absoluteprohibitionby 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.

102All 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.

103The 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.

104More 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.

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

106The 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.

107On the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland.

108No 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.”

108No 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 possessRosefrom 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.

109

“—— Granby stands without a flaw;At least, each fault he did possessRosefrom 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.

110John Calcraft.

111The 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.

112Lord 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.

113This is confirmed by the King’s correspondence with Lord North.—E.

114He 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 alsosupra, 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.

115Walpole’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.

116See more of Brass Crosbyinfra. He rivalled Wilkes in civic popularity.—E.

117Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 54.—E.

118Lord 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.

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

120The debate is given by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 89. It turned more on the law of libel as administered in the recent trials of Rexv.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.

121Lord 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.

122Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1301.—E.

123This motion arose out of the debate on the power of the Attorney-General to file informationsex 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.)

124This 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 800l.to 1000l.a-year, as a mark of respect towards him. He died in middle life, on the 16th September, 1779.—E.

125This 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.

126Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 1319.—E.

127Cavendish’s Debates, vol. ii. p. 149.—E.

128Parliamentary History, vol. xvi p. 1321.—E.

129I 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.

130Lord 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.

131This was the case of Tothillv.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.

132The 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.

133Governor 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.

Back to Index Next