Chapter XX (1)

Provision for the King’s Brothers.--Debate.--Death of the Marquis
of Tavistock.--Of the Dauphiness.--The Indian Papers.--Intrigues
of Grenville.--Regulation of America.--Temper in which the
Americans received the Repeal.--New Project of using Force towards
the Colonies.--Discussion in the House of Lords on the American
Papers.--The East Indian Question.--Real or Affected Insanity of
Lord Chatham.--Interview of the Author with the Lord Chancellor.--
The Latter lets out a Secret which is turned to Advantage by
Walpole.--Debate on an Act of the Assembly of Massachusets.--
Attempted Reconciliation between Conway and Rockingham.

During these altercations, and while the time necessary for calling and holding courts of directors or proprietors delayed the prosecution of this matter, the King sent a message to both Houses, desiring them to make a provision for his brothers. The message was taken into consideration on the 19th, and in each House Lord Temple and Mr. Grenville objected to the establishment being entailed on the issue of the Princes. On the 24th, when it was to be voted, Mr. Grenville, without directly opposing, made a very able speech and observations on the settlement. It would be an additional expense, he said, of 24,000_l._ a year on the Civil List, and might have been saved from other articles. The charge of ambassadors might be reduced, who each cost the Crown 13,000_l._ the first year. He ridiculed Lord Chatham’s magnificent plans of naming ambassadors to various Courts, and despatching none of them. He had threatened to dissolve the Family-compact; yet Sir James Grey was not yet set out for Spain, nor Mr. Lyttelton[337] for Portugal. Turn north, there were the same great plans, yet Mr. Stanley was not gone. Mr. George Pitt was alike absent from Turin; to those gentlemen he professed meaning nothing personal: the Chancellor of the Exchequer must pay them, and they were in the departments of the Secretaries of State, who, though in responsible places, he was sure were not to blame. The pensions on Ireland amounted to 88,000_l._ a year; the revenue of that country ought to be laid out to support the Royal Family, and Ireland would like it. Stanley, a very warm man, took this invective to himself, and showed how much he resented it. He complained that Grenville had given him no notice of the intended attack, and observed how delicate his own situation was in speaking, or not speaking, between private honour and the duty he owed to the King of secrecy. He did not care, he said, whether the attack was pointed at him, or to wound another through him; the employment he had not sought: in France he had served to his loss, and was ready to have his conduct inquired into. Had Lord Egremont (Grenville’s brother-in-law) gone, when he was named to the congress at Augsbourg? Foreign Ministers had no means of raising a fortune. Had he himself a son he would say to him, “Get into Parliament, make tiresome speeches; you will have great offers; do not accept them at first,--then do; then make great provision for yourself and family, and then call yourself an independent country gentleman.” For himself, he was ready to answer Mr. Grenville there or anywhere else. Severe as the picture was, Grenville had drawn it on himself, resenting Stanley’s having left him for Lord Chatham. Nor could Stanley be blamed for taking offence; he had been represented in a disgraceful light, while he had acted with singular honour, and yet was not at liberty to disculpate himself. The fact stood thus: Lord Chatham, as I have said, full of a grand northern alliance, had named Stanley Minister to both the Russian and Prussian Courts. The latter would not receive him: the Czarina did not like the proposed alliance, nor the expense of sending an ambassador in return: yet had she named Prince Czernicheff. Sir George Maccartney had desired leave to come home; and thus Stanley stood on the list as ambassador, in compliment to the nomination of an ambassador from St. Petersburg; yet, perceiving he was not to go, he had honourably refused to take the appointments; a state secret he could not disclose, as it would be telling the Russian Court that there was no longer an intention of sending him. Dowdeswell spoke in favour of the Princes, as he was to have made the same motion the foregoing spring. Sir Roger Newdigate, in a dull metaphorical speech, abused the Administration, and complimented Grenville. Charles Townshend turned him into the highest ridicule, analysing his metaphors, and reducing them and the whole speech, as it deserved, to nonsense. Newdigate replied, and with the obstinacy of dulness professed he had never admired any Administration but Grenville’s. Townshend enforced what he had said with new ridicule: the settlement was granted, and the King saved 9000_l._ a year.

A melancholy event relaxed a little the assiduity of the Opposition. The Marquis of Tavistock,[338] only son of the Duke of Bedford, was thrown from his horse as he was hunting, and received a kick that fractured his skull. He languished about a fortnight, and died at the age of twenty-seven. If there was a perfectly amiable and unblemished character in an age so full of censure, and so much deserving it, the universal esteem in which the virtues of that young Lord were held, seemed to allow that he was the person. His gentleness, generosity, and strict integrity made all the world love or admire him. Full of spirit and martial ardour, which he suppressed in deference to a father to whom his life was so important, he had the genuine bashfulness of youth, and the humility of the lowest fortune. His large fortune he shared with his cotemporary friends, assisting them in purchasing commissions. Yet he had taste for those arts whose excellence and splendour became the House of so great an heir, and indulged himself in them when they did not interfere with his more favourite liberality. His parts were neither shining nor contemptible; and his virtue assisted his understanding in preserving both from being biassed or seduced. To observers, it was clear that he much disapproved the want of principle in the relations and dependants[339] of his parents; yet so respectful was his duty to his father, and so attentive his tenderness to his mother, and so artfully had she impressed it, that Lord Tavistock’s repugnance to their connections and politics was only observable by his shunning Parliament, and by withdrawing himself from their society to hunting and country sports. He was not less exemplary as a husband than as a son, and his widow, who doated on so excellent a young man, survived him but two years.[340] The indecent indifference with which such a catastrophe was felt by the faction of the family, spoke but too plainly that Lord Tavistock had lived a reproach and terror to them. The Duke, his father, for a few days almost lost his senses--and recovered them too soon. The Duchess was less blameable, and retained the impression longer; but while all mankind who ever heard the name of Lord Tavistock were profuse in lamenting such a national calamity, it gave universal scandal when, in a little fortnight after his death, they beheld his father, the Duke, carried by his creatures to the India House to vote on a factious question. This unexampled insensibility was bitterly pressed home on the Duke two years afterwards in a public libel. Yet surely, it was savage wantonness to taunt a parent with such a misfortune; and of flint must the heart have been that could think such a domestic stroke a proper subject for insult, however inadequate to the world the anguish appeared: how steeled the nature that could wish to recall the feelings of a father on such a misfortune. In Borgia’s age they stabbed with daggers; in ours with the pen![341]

About the same time died the widow Dauphiness, a pious but unamiable Princess, and only remarkable for the various fortune that attended her. Daughter of Augustus of Poland, she was married into the same Court, where the daughter of her father’s rival, Stanislaus, was Queen. Received and treated with affection by that Princess, and possessing all the tenderness of her husband, her fruitfulness seemed to ensure her felicity; when, though seated on the step of the most formidable throne in Europe, she beheld her father again driven into exile, and her mother dying in the midst of that calamity. Her family were scarce restored when the Dauphin perished before her eyes of a lingering illness; and she outlived him too short a time to be secure that the youth of her children would not expose them to the dangers that attend a minority.

The disputes in the East India Company, which grew out of their great cause before the Parliament, produced an attack on Lord Clive, his enemies attempting to seize the Jaghire that had been granted to him by the Mogul; and it was but by a majority of about 30 voices that he saved that immense revenue on a ballot, 361 voting for the continuation of it for ten years, and 330 against it.

Towards the end of March the House began reading the East Indian papers that had been laid before them; each day of which produced much general debate, especially as witnesses were examined. The Attorney-General De Grey and Dyson shone on these occasions, and showed how much the question was a matter of state, and that the King’s Bench could have no judicature over the East Indies. Governor Vansittart[342] was examined for four hours, and gave much satisfaction: his evidence tended to strengthen the right of the Crown, and brought over many persons to that side. Colonel Monroe spoke strongly in his deposition to the same effect.

In the mean time the faction of Grenville and the Bedfords, humbled by the death of Lord Tavistock, and by the ground gained against them on the India question, began to cast about for real union with the Rockinghams. The latter, on the first overtures, and without any positive assurance of that union, sought to draw Mr. Conway into the league, affirming that Grenville, as they had lightly been made to believe, would be content with some inferior post, and would waive his hopes of being Minister. Conway, however, discontented with Lord Chatham, and fearful of offending his old friends, did not listen to a plan so improbable in its construction, and so dishonourable in its tendency. Grenville could only mean to get to Court with the view of undermining his associates when he should be there: and such a treaty would be unpardonable in Conway, while acting in the King’s service. He would not allow himself to think of the Treasury, which he knew Lord Rockingham would never cede to him; and yet on talking over the proposed arrangement with him, he said sensibly, and not unambitiously, “If I should join them, I would insist on Grenville going into the House of Lords.” He was not without fears of Grenville and Rockingham uniting and leaving him with Lord Chatham and Lord Bute. I was not so easily alarmed, though the Duke of Richmond endeavoured to persuade me that the junction would certainly take place, and that Conway would not even recover his regiment. I saw no danger comparable to that of his resigning, and consequently of dissolving the Administration; and very little to apprehend from the union of two men whom so many reasons divided, and whom the predominant one of both aiming at the first place must for ever keep asunder. So it happened then. Neither would yield a post which neither saw a prospect of attaining by his own strength. Grenville at last proposed that both should desist, and should agree in the nomination of a third person. This, no doubt, he intended should be his own brother, Temple, who might afterwards resign to him. But the least proper was the most obstinate, and the treaty came to nothing. I put the Duke of Richmond in mind of what Lord Gower had said the last year, and asked him if he thought it likely that the Bedfords would enlist under a man who was so much their contempt? Lord Sandwich having abused Lord Rockingham in the House of Lords, Lord Gower said to him, “Sandwich, how could you worry the poor dumb creature so!”

A question of more importance than the Indian one was now to come on the carpet--the Regulation of America. The repeal of the Stamp Act, however necessary and salutary, had, as Grenville and his adherents foretold, instead of pacifying that continent, inspired the turbulent with presumption. With whatever joy the repeal had been received, it was not followed by that general gratitude to the Ministers who obtained it, which they deserved. Great Britain having yielded, the tribunes of America flattered themselves that new concessions might be extorted: so certain is the march of successful patriotism towards acquisition. Still the disturbances were not alarming nor universal: and if, instead of tampering with a wound not closed, emollients, restoratives, at least oblivion, and no farther essays at taxes had succeeded, harmony perhaps had again taken place. A Ministry composed of heterogeneous particles, some inclination to show authority after mildness, an eagerness to replace the loss on the land-tax, and, above all, the inconsiderate vanity of Charles Townshend, and not a small propensity in him to pay court to Grenville, all concurred to prompt rash and indigested measures; while a Parliament, so obsequious as that of the moment, was ready to enact every successive contradiction that was proposed to it by the Court, and eased Ministers of the trouble of weighing the plans they intended to pursue. Nay, the circumstances of the time recommended violence as the least obnoxious measure; Grenville being sure to give less obstruction to any intemperance which resembled his own, and secretly enjoying any indiscretion that would involve his successors in the same difficulties as those he had occasioned himself.

The first plan on which the Ministers fixed was that of force and punishment. They proposed to oblige the Provinces to furnish beer and vinegar to the soldiers; and if they refused, the governor of New York was to be prohibited from giving the royal assent for holding their assemblies. This step would, in effect, have been a dissolution of their government, and not less violent than the seizure of charters by Charles II. When the scheme was laid before the Cabinet, Conway, who adhered to the conciliating measures of the last year, and to his own mild maxims, alone opposed so arbitrary a project. When,

On the 30th of the month, the American papers which had been laid before the Houses, were taken into consideration by the Lords. The Chancellor opened the nature of them, and hinting at the disobedience of the Colonies, said, if his own sentiments should not be so lenient as formerly, it was because he had formed them anew on the Act passed in the last session. Lord Weymouth observed to him, sensibly, that last year’s had not been an Act but a Declaration. Lord Temple was more acrimonious, his language gross, telling the Chancellor that his former opinion of Parliament having _no right_ to tax the Colonies, had been treasonable. The Duke of Grafton defended the Chancellor with great propriety, and asked why Lord Temple had not called him, if guilty of treason, to the bar? He reproached Temple, too, with blackening a most respectable character (Lord Chatham’s), from revenge. The present question, he said, was too serious for faction; but if places were the objects of opposition, and if his would reconcile Lord Temple, it was at his service. These bickerings were all that passed then. Lord Denbigh called on the Opposition to propose some plan for restoring the tranquillity and submission of America; but neither party were eager to stir in it: the Ministers were afraid, the Opposition apprehended disunion amongst themselves,--so different were the sentiments of Grenville and Rockingham on that subject.

When the settlement on the Princes passed the House of Lords, Lord Temple behaved with his usual violence. Great and deserved reflections were thrown on Lord Northington for his scandalous extortion of emoluments on the late change. Lord Temple then caused the House to be summoned without acquainting them to what purpose.

The same day, his brother and the Opposition debated in the Commons against delay on the East Indian affair till eight in the evening, and then divided the House for calling in witnesses. Many of the courtiers had gone away, and the motion was rejected but by 96 to 82! Sir W. Meredith then declared, that if Beckford did not by that day sevennight ascertain the House when he would bring on his questions, he would move to dissolve the Committee. Such inconsistent conduct in the Opposition was occasioned by its having appeared on the examination, that the Crown would be justifiable in seizing the acquisitions of the Company, so crying were the abuses, and so little was the Company itself master of its own servants. Easter, too, was now approaching, and the Opposition feared not being able to rally their forces after the holidays. Grenville, apprehending from so many concurrent circumstances favourable to Lord Chatham, that he would be able to acquire a large revenue to the Crown, laboured to instil fears of such intended force; saying, the East Indian business had begun in folly, and would end in violence.

Lord Chatham himself either was not, or would not be, in a condition to strike any great stroke. Though he still continued to take the air publicly, his spirits and nerves were said to be in the lowest and most shattered condition. Added to the phrenzy of his conduct, a new circumstance raised general suspicion of there being more of madness in his case, than mere caprice and impracticable haughtiness: he had put himself into the hands of Dr. Addington--a regular physician, it is true, but originally a mad doctor, innovating enough in his practice to be justly deemed a quack. The physician, it was supposed, was selected as proper to the disease; whereas, if all was not a farce, I should think that the physician rather caused the disease, Addington having kept off the gout, and possibly dispersed it through his nerves, or even driven it up to his head. So long did Lord Chatham remain without a fit of the gout, and so childish and agitated was his whole frame, if a word of business was mentioned to him, tears and trembling immediately succeeded to cheerful, indifferent conversation. Some passages, too, which I shall specify hereafter, indicated a fond kind of dotage; yet do I very much doubt whether the whole scene was not imposition, and the dictates of disappointment, inability, and pride, rather than the fruits of a brain extraordinarily distempered. A slave to his passions, a master dissembler, and no profound statesman, his conduct was more likely to be extravagant by design than from the loss of his senses. As he reappeared in the world, and yet governed his domestic affairs with the same wild wantonness and prodigality, it is probable that there was not more folly in his secession from business, than could be accounted for in so eccentric a composition. If it was nothing but singularity and passion, Lord Chatham was certainly the first man who ever retired from business into the post of Prime Minister.

As I suspected that much of this ill-humour was founded on his disappointment in Mr. Conway, who would not receive orders from behind the veil of the _sanctum sanctorum_, and as I had heard that the Chancellor complained much of the latter, I desired to wait on Lord Camden, in order if possible to restore some harmony in the Administration. Having appointed me an hour, I offered all that depended on me towards reconciling my friend and Lord Chatham. The Chancellor by no means aided my good disposition. He complained much of Mr. Conway’s niceties, difficulties, and impracticability. In truth Mr. Conway allowed too much to his scruples, and the Chancellor on the other hand was a little too alert in relaxing his former principles; the one leaning towards power, the other to popularity: yet I think even the Chancellor was too much addicted to the latter, to have risked it by any signal servility.[343] He was generally firm, when pushed by the roughness of the times. A moderate degree of attention to his fortune stole into his conduct, when it did not too much clash with his professions or connections. He told me that Lord Chatham was very willing to replace Mr. Conway in the army; and being but a novice in politics, he let drop indiscreetly, that if the Ministers could weather the session, there must be a totally new Administration; adding, that Mr. Conway’s behaviour on the East Indian affair had been a stab to Lord Chatham, and had reduced him to lean on Lord Bute.

Though I did not know whether this imprudent declaration implied an intention of co-operating entirely with Bute, or might not look towards Grenville, yet I saw plainly that there was an intention of getting rid of Mr. Conway. I took no notice either to the Chancellor or to Mr. Conway of what I had discovered, lest the latter should resign immediately; but I instantly determined to keep Conway steady to his last year’s point of moderation towards America. It would preserve his connection with his old friends, who would be necessary to him, if Lord Chatham broke with him; and it was essential to him to maintain his character. Accordingly I softened extremely towards the Rockingham party, and talked to them of the necessity of Mr. Conway and their agreeing, as they had done when in Administration together, to oppose any violence against the Americans. This plan succeeded extraordinarily, and blasted all thoughts of union between Grenville and Rockingham, the former of whom had endeavoured to persuade the latter to content himself with a dukedom and the lieutenancy of Ireland. Nor was this all the success that attended the secret the Chancellor had blabbed to me. It occasioned such a breach in and discomfiture of the Opposition, as carried the Administration through the session with triumph. So often did chance throw occasions in my way, which no policy of mine could have super-induced, and which, if I preferred vanity to truth, I might represent as the effects of profound craft and foresight.

On the 10th of April, in consequence of Lord Temple’s summons, the Duke of Bedford moved to address the King to order the Privy Council to take into their consideration a recent Act of the Assembly of the Massachusets, in which they had taken on themselves to pardon the late insurrections, and to couple with that Act an ordinance for raising of money. Lord Northington affirmed, that the consideration of those Acts was still before the Board of Trade; on which the Duke of Grafton moved the previous question. In reply to a reproach made by the Duke of Bedford on the delays and inactivity of Administration, Grafton decently hinted, and it was fresh in everybody’s memory, how handsomely he had put off the American question on Lord Tavistock’s accident. Lord Halifax rudely and inconsiderately censured Conway for not having transmitted the orders of their Lordships to the Colonies. In fact, the orders had not been sent to Conway; and Halifax, the accuser, had, when Secretary of State himself, neglected orders committed to him by the King in Council. The Duke of Richmond warmly took up Conway’s defence, and led the way to a separation from the other part of the Opposition. Lord Talbot gave up all the Ministers but the Duke of Grafton. Lord Mansfield spoke finely for the motion; the Chancellor well, for acting with spirit against the Colonies; but said it would require great prudence to conduct that spirit. Lord Suffolk and Lord Lyttelton supported the motion. Lord Shelburne and Lord Botetort were against it, and Lord Townshend for it. It was rejected by the previous question, on a majority of 63 to 36. The Duke of Richmond, Lord Rockingham, Lord Dartmouth, Lord Monson, Lord Radnor, and Lord Edgcumbe voting with the Court; the Duke of Newcastle, who leaned to the Bedfords, Lord Albemarle, and others of the party, retiring. Lord Hardwicke voted with the minority.[344]

On this schism, I again pressed Conway to join the Rockinghams on the American question, and hinted my suspicion, not my knowledge, that Lord Chatham might think of dismissing him at the end of the session. Conway was enough disposed to that union; said he could not negotiate himself, but consented that I should sound the Duke of Richmond, and wished their faction would not insist on that unattainable point, the total dismission of Lord Bute’s friends. I found the Duke much incensed against Lord Temple for not having communicated to them the late motion, and provoked that Rigby, who had negotiated with them on Grenville’s part, and at first had waived the Treasury for him, had at last insisted on it. I pressed his Grace to try by his cousin Albemarle’s means to gain the Bedfords separately from Grenville. Conway wished that junction and separation. I did not at all think it practicable; but I hoped that the proposal, coming from the Rockinghams, would exasperate Grenville and widen the breach between them. The Duke approved and was eager for that alliance, but demanded that Conway should resign first, as many of their friends were averse to him while he acted with Lord Chatham. I advised him to try it himself with Conway, though I told him I would not answer for the success: but I would not undertake what I intended to impede; expecting that Lord Chatham would not be able to continue in power, and that then it must devolve on Conway: and choosing that the Rockinghams should accede to him, not he go over to them. Neither happened. I did not accomplish the junction; but I both kept Conway from resigning, and the Rockinghams from uniting with Grenville and the Bedfords.

END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

LONDON:
Printed by S. & J. BENTLEY, WILSON, and FLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

FOOTNOTES

[1] This tract is printed in the second volume of Walpole’s works. It is written with temper, and in an agreeable style, though with less spirit than might have been expected from the warmth of the author’s feelings on the occasion.--E.

[2] “Dr. Lloyd was a man of very polite manners, extraordinary composure of mind, and resignation to the Divine will. He died in 1790, aged 64.” Nichols’s Illustrations of Literary History.--E.

[3] The title is, “The Budget; inscribed to the man who thinks himself Minister.

Emendare tuos quamvis Faustine libellos
Non multæ poterunt, mea litura prodest.”

It is a quarto of only twenty-two pages, slovenly written, and with little vivacity of expression.--E.

[4] Mr. Hartley was a frequent writer of pamphlets on the side of the Opposition, chiefly on the Revenue. He was attached both to Lord Rockingham and Mr. Pitt, and was the son of a physician, [who was also the most eminent metaphysician of his day. Mr. Hartley had the honour of negotiating and signing the preliminaries of Peace with America in 1783, and of moving the first resolution in the House of Commons against the Slave Trade. He was much respected by all parties, but his speeches seldom found a willing audience. Tickell has parodied him with most ludicrous effect in the “Anticipation;” and he is thus described by another cotemporary--

“Peace to the rest, for Faction now,
To shield her sons with poppied brow,
Bids Hartley stand before me.
Goddess, the potent charm I own;
My breath is lost, my voice has flown,
And Dulness creeps all o’er me.”

_New Foundling Hospital for Wit._

He was a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, until his death in 1813, at a very advanced age. Flattering obituaries appear of him in the Annual Register and the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year. A clergyman of his College, now deceased, described him to a friend of the Editor “as an honest, high-principled man, but a dull talker, and a prosy speaker.”--E.]

[5] Mr. Grenville was concerned afterwards in several abusive pamphlets against Lord Rockingham and his friends. Some were drawn up by Whately, his secretary; others he penned himself, or gave the materials.

[6] This tract (an octavo of thirty-eight pages) is agreeably and temperately written, and unquestionably deserves to rank among the popular pamphlets of the day. The reply, though preferred by Walpole, is now a far less readable performance.--E.

[7] He was in the Duke of Cumberland’s family, and much attached to him.

[8] In his eighty-third year. His old age was lonely and unattractive, being passed in the society of a few obsequious bishops and blue-stocking ladies, with whom he kept up a sickly commerce of flattery. His zenith had been bright: his decline was not mild. Avarice tormented even his last hours, and it is painful to witness, in his correspondence, how entirely he was subjected to that baleful passion. It degraded his nature, and almost disturbed his reason, for on no other ground can some of his acts be explained. His character as a politician was too severely censured by his cotemporaries, but in private life he was mean, selfish, and sordid, to an extent almost commensurate with his great abilities and attainments.--E.

[9] When the first part of these Memoirs was written there had not transpired the smallest idea of D’Eon being a woman, nor when that secret was first broached did it gain credit. Some years also elapsed before the fact was allowed, and it was some time before the dubious person assumed the female habit, and then only by command of the Court of France. I have not chosen to correct my narrative, not only because the change of sex did not happen till the personage had ceased to figure in an historic light, but because, having no notion of that doubtful gender at the time of her eccentric behaviour, my account will remain more natural, and does paint the general sensation produced by her exploits. The Government here acted as I have written, totally in the dark as to a false assumption of sex. [In 1777 an action was brought by a surgeon named Hayes against Jacques, a baker, who had received fifteen guineas to return one hundred guineas if it should be proved that the Chevalier was a woman; and the evidence of that fact was so strong that the jury decided in favour of Hayes. There were other actions on the same point, but they were disposed of by the Court, very properly, declaring these wagers to be illegal. Da Costa _v._ Jones, Cowper’s Reports, 729.--The Annual Register, p. 167, evidently copying some newspaper, says, “by this decision no less a sum than 75,000_l._ will remain in this country, which would otherwise have been transmitted to Paris.” The same authority says, “Aug. 16th, the Chevalier left England, declaring that she had no interest whatever in the policies opened on her sex.” From that time till the death of the Chevalier he was always believed to be a woman, and dressed as such. The post mortem examination, which is stated in the Gent. Mag. vol. lxxx. p. 588, proved him to be a perfect male. He was never employed after his disgrace; but having been long a spy of Louis the Fifteenth, it was not deemed prudent to drive him to despair, and a handsome pension was granted to him, which he enjoyed till the Revolution. He then took refuge in England, and was afterwards reduced to great poverty. He died in London, at a very advanced age, in 1810. There is an interesting note on Chev. d’Eon by Mr. Croker in Walpole’s collected Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 323. See also the article, a very partial one, in the Biographie Universelle.--E.]

[10] The Count d’Estaign had broken his parole in India, and, having been again taken prisoner, was kept in close confinement at Portsmouth--a treatment of which he very unreasonably complained as harsh and unjustifiable. His name often occurs in the history of the American war, in which he commanded the French fleet with some reputation. He claimed a victory over Admiral Byron. During the French Revolution he acted a very vacillating, if not dishonest, part; and, having given offence both to Royalists and Republicans, he was brought to the scaffold in 1794, aged 65.--E.

[11] Mr. Legge did not write the narrative mentioned in the text. It is the composition of the Bishop of Hereford, his intimate friend, to whom he committed on his death-bed “the publication of the papers that explained his case;” or, in other words, his correspondence with Lord Bute respecting the Hampshire election. (Some account of the Life of the Right Hon. Bilson Legge.) His object being, not, as Walpole supposes, to fix on Lord Bute the charge of meddling with elections, but to clear his own character from various insinuations, by showing, from the correspondence, that his refusal to yield to Lord Bute’s dictation in the Hampshire election, was the real cause of his disgrace, and that he might have remained in office if he had chosen to disgrace himself by taking the opposite course. The Bishop’s observations explanatory of the transaction are in the spirit that might be expected from a prelate not indisposed to translation, when treating of the conduct of those who dispense ecclesiastical patronage. To make up, however, for his courtesy towards his patron’s adversaries, he heaps unmeasured eulogy upon his patron’s memory. It is now, indeed, pretty well understood that Mr. Legge had no title to a tithe of the merits ascribed to him by his right reverend biographer. He was a very useful statesman. (See supra, p. 39.) His head, as Sir Robert Walpole said of him, had very little rubbish in it. He was good-natured, and easy in social intercourse. To exalted patriotism he never raised any pretensions; and whatever may be the Bishop’s opinion, the friend and boon companion of Wilkes could be no pattern of religion or morality.--E.

[12] William Howe, brother of Richard Lord Viscount Howe, an Admiral, and one of the Lords of the Admiralty. [Afterwards a Lieutenant-general and K.B. He served in the American war, and was generally unfortunate. On the death of the Admiral he became Viscount Howe. The title expired on his death without issue, in 1814.--E.]

[13] Sir William Boothby, Bart., a Major-general and Colonel of the 6th Regiment of Foot, died, unmarried, in 1797.--E.

[14] Prince Edward, next brother to the King.

[15] The Duke died on the 2nd of October, at the early age of forty-four. The scanty praise awarded him in the text is far below his due. He had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1755, and First Lord of the Treasury in the following year. “In the ordinary business of his office,” says Lord Waldegrave, “he shewed great punctuality and diligence, and no want of capacity.”--Memoirs, p. 141. A strong sense of responsibility, and a natural diffidence in his own talents, accompanied by a dislike for business, and an indifference to ministerial employments, gave him, at times, an air of indecision rather ungraceful; but he could be firm on great occasions, and his public no less than his private life was distinguished by unsullied uprightness and honour.--E.

[16] Edmund Boyle, Earl of Corke and Orrery, married ---- Courteney, daughter of Lady Frances Courteney, only sister of John Earl of Sandwich. [The marriage being afterwards dissolved, he married the Hon. Mary Monckton, who long survived him. He died in 1798.--E.]

[17] William Duke of Devonshire married Lady Charlotte Boyle, second daughter and co-heiress of Richard Boyle, last Earl of Burlington, Lord Treasurer of Ireland.

[18] William Ponsonby, Earl of Besborough, married Lady Caroline Cavendish, eldest daughter of William third Duke of Devonshire. Lord Besborough had been at Constantinople with Lord Sandwich. [He died in 1793, and was the grandfather of the present Earl.--E.]

[19] What authority Walpole had for this assertion does not appear. The Duke was without ambition, and content to live as an English nobleman on his splendid domain. He died in 1729.--E.

[20] Dr. Johnson, a violent political opponent, observed of him, “that he was not a man of superior abilities, but he was a man strictly faithful to his word. If, for instance, he had promised you an acorn, and none had grown that year in his woods, he would not have contented himself with that excuse. He would have sent to Denmark for it. So unconditional was he in keeping his word--so high as to the point of honour.”--Boswell’s Life of Johnson, vol. iii. p. 167. The same lofty feelings characterised his public life, and caused him to be implicitly trusted by the great party of which, without his own seeking, he was the undisputed head. Lord Waldegrave seems to have entertained no mean opinion of his talents.--Memoirs, p. 86. He was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1737, and afterwards remained for a time in the Cabinet; but he accepted office with reluctance, and quitted it with disgust, for he loved his ease and scorned all the arts of intrigue. He died in 1755, aged fifty-seven.--E.

[21] Lord George Cavendish filled the place of Comptroller of the Household in 1762, and for some years represented Derbyshire. He had sufficient sense to speak respectably in Parliament. He died unmarried in 1794.--E.

[22] Lord Frederick Cavendish had frequently distinguished himself during the Seven years’ war as an excellent cavalry officer. In one of the last affairs of the campaign of 1762, he gained great credit by his spirited behaviour on the 6th of July, when, under the command of Lord Granby, he defeated a considerable body of the French stationed at Horn in order to preserve the communication of the main body with Frankfort, the result of which defeat was the evacuation of Gottingen. He attained the rank of Field-Marshal, and died unmarried at an advanced age in 1803.--E.

[23] The sarcastic tone of these remarks on the Cavendish family may be ascribed to a family quarrel, in which the Duke of Devonshire had sided with Horace Walpole the uncle, against Horace Walpole the nephew, the author of these Memoirs.--Mem. i. 170, note by Lord Holland. Lord John Cavendish had also displeased Walpole by often thwarting his plans for the management of the Opposition, and particularly by prevailing on General Conway to act contrary to his advice. On these occasions, however, Lord John was actuated by the purest motives, and no statesman of that day shewed a nicer sense of honour, or more strict notions of public duty. His influence with the Liberal party was considerable, and raised him afterwards to a higher post than his talents could alone justly claim. At the time to which the text refers he was about thirty-two years old.--E.

[24] There was shown about that time, and by that title, a Canary-bird that performed several tricks, by pointing to cards and numbers at command.

[25] The accomplishments of Lord Lyttelton were undeniable. Unfortunately they were overshadowed by an infirmity of judgment, that materially lessened the dignity of his character. He seems to have been the easy dupe of Archibald Bower. There was often much misplaced sentiment in his conversation. His letters teem with foolish conceits, and the extravagant notions he entertained of parental authority made him so severe and injudicious a father as to afford some excuse for the gross misconduct of his son, a young nobleman whose brilliant abilities he was almost the only person unwilling or unable to appreciate. Lord Lyttelton died in 1773, at the age of sixty four. His public and private life had been irreproachable.--E.

[26] Wilkes had attacked me in the North Briton, for a panegyric on the sense of the Scots, in my catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors: a censure I regarded so little, that when Lord Holland was engaged in his bitter persecution of the Whigs under Lord Bute, I sent an anonymous letter to Wilkes, pointing out a very advantageous character of Lord Holland that I had formerly written in the paper called The World, and inciting the North Briton to take notice both of the author and the subject of the character. Wilkes caught at the notice, said but little of me, and fell severely on Lord Holland, as I had foreseen he would.

[27] A similar story is related in Tacitus, of the visit paid by Augustus to his unfortunate grandson Agrippa, in the island of Planasia, having excited suspicions in the mind of Tiberius that caused him to hasten the Emperor’s death.--1 _Annal._ v.--E.

[28] The account given in the Princess Dashkau’s Memoirs of this transaction, presents strong internal evidence of the guilt of Mirowitz. The Princess otherwise would not have taken such pains to exculpate herself from the charge of having been his accomplice. He appears to have been virtually insane.--E.

[29] Translator of Horace and Demosthenes.

[30] Robert Henley, Earl of Northington.

[31] There was another reason given, and probably a more efficacious one. This was the number of suits commenced against the General Warrants, with which he did not care to meddle.

[32] The patent of precedence could not be _over_ the Solicitor-General, whose official rank necessarily placed him next to the Attorney, and above all other members of the bar. The elevation of Mr. Yorke was of greater advantage to the senior barristers than to himself, for otherwise they could not have held briefs with him; though the Government cared, in those days, too little for the bar to have attached much weight to that consideration, unless they had desired to please Mr. Yorke.--E.

[33] Philip Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, the famous man of wit.

[34] Mr. Cumberland says elegantly of the Primate, “No man faced difficulties with greater courage, none overcame them with more address: he was formed to hold command over turbulent spirits in tempestuous seasons, for if he could not absolutely rule the passions of men, he could artfully rule men by the medium of their passions. He had great suavity of manners when points were to be carried by insinuation and finesse; but if authority was necessary to be enforced, none could hold it with a higher hand: he was an elegant scholar, a consummate politician, a very fine gentleman, and in every character seen to more advantage than in that, which, according to his sacred function, should have been his chief and only object to sustain.” Cumberland’s Mem. vol. i. p. 229.--E.

[35] Henry Boyle, a grandson of Roger, first Earl of Orrery. His hypocrisy could not be very deep, if the saying ascribed to him be true--“that he would not accept an honour whilst there was a shilling in the Treasury.” He has been described as “a warm, sincere friend, and undisguised enemy.” His peculiar sphere was the House of Commons, not as an orator, but as manager; and few country gentlemen, we are told, would continue a canvass in their respective counties without a certainty of Mr. Boyle’s support, if petitioned against.--Hardy’s Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. i. p. 88. He would have made an admirable Secretary of the Treasury in corrupt or turbulent times.--E.

[36] Sir George Yonge, Bart., was the only surviving son of Sir William Yonge, the eloquent and well-known supporter of Sir Robert Walpole. He was appointed Secretary at War in Lord Shelburne’s Administration, and subsequently became Master of the Mint. His last office was that of Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He had many of his father’s parts as well as failings, being kind, persuasive, industrious, reckless, scheming, and dissipated. His last years were embittered by the failure of a speculation into which he had entered in the neighbourhood of Honiton, which borough he had long represented in Parliament. He died at an advanced age at the beginning of the present century, and, having no children, the baronetcy became extinct.--E.

[37] The Duke of Newcastle’s letter and Mr. Pitt’s reply are printed in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 293–8.--E.

[38] Dr. John Ewer, of King’s College, Cambridge, Canon of Windsor, and successively Bishop of Llandaff and Bangor. He published some single sermons on public occasions, and died in October, 1774. His library was sold by auction in 1776.--E.

[39] Dr. Carmichael was brother to the Earl of Hyndford. He had not long to wait for preferment, nor did he long enjoy it, for he was appointed Archbishop of Dublin in June, and died in the November following.--E.

[40] Primate Robinson, without being eminent either as a divine or a politician, filled his high office creditably. He had sound sense, and a turn for business, was not ignorant of the world, and his deportment admirably suited a great ecclesiastic. In these respects he bore a strong resemblance to Archbishop Sutton. He exerted himself laudably in building churches and parsonage-houses, and in maintaining the character of the clergy. Like many of the Irish Archbishops of former days, he brought nobility into his family, by obtaining the barony of Rokeby, with remainder to a distant cousin; for although one of many brothers, he had no nearer descendants. He died unmarried in 1794, having survived his brother, Sir Thomas Robinson, whose baronetcy eventually devolved upon him.--E.

[41] “The original contains an imputation against Sir W. Pynsent, which, if true, would induce us to suspect him of a disordered mind.”--Mr. Croker’s note in vol. iv. of Walpole’s Letters, p. 484, to a letter to Lord Hertford, giving more particulars of this bequest.

[42] Frederick Lord North, son of the Earl of Guildford, married Miss Speke, an heiress.

[43] This is very improbable, for Lord North was notoriously indifferent to money, and careless of his personal interests.--E.

[44] Yet a clergyman of the name of Pynsent went to law afterwards with Mr. Pitt for the inheritance, but lost his cause.

[45] An interesting account of this debate is given by Walpole, in a letter to Lord Hertford, of the 27th January, vol. iv. p. 488, of his Correspondence.--E.

[46] Mr. Calvert’s speech is reported in the xviTH vol. of Parliamentary Debates, p. 44, and is the only portion of the debate that has been preserved. It is erroneously stated to have been made on a motion respecting the dismissal of these officers. See also the note giving an extract from the History of the Minority, p. 291.--E.

[47] Second son of Harry, and brother of Charles, Duke of Bolton, the latter of whom he afterwards succeeded in the title. He was in the sea-service, [and is said to be the “Captain Whiffle” of Smollet’s “Roderick Random.” He attained the rank of Admiral of the White, and died in 1794. He was twice married, but left no male issue, and the dukedom expired with him.--E.]

[48] He had had his regiment taken from him by Sir Robert Walpole.

[49] As on the Bill “for Liberty of Conscience.”--Clarendon’s Life, continuation, p. 248. The noble historian, however, observes, that from that time he never had the same credit with His Majesty he had before.--E.

[50] The trial is reported in vol. xix. of the State Trials, p. 1178: of 123 peers present, 119 voted him guilty of manslaughter; the remaining four voted him not guilty generally.--E.

[51] An abstract of the arguments in this debate is given in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 8.--E.

[52] So in the original MS.

[53] George Simon Viscount Nuneham, eldest son of the Earl of Harcourt, was a sincere republican, and retired from Parliament because he could not continue to vote according to his principles without offending his father. [He became _wiser_ afterwards, and accepted the post of Master of the Horse to the Queen, and his wife that of Lady of the Bedchamber. Wraxall describes him as a nobleman of high breeding, well informed, and of a most correct deportment, though of manners somewhat constrained and formal. He died without issue in 1809, aged 63, and was succeeded by his brother, the late Field-Marshal Lord Harcourt, on whose death the title became extinct.--E.]

[54] Lord Sandwich and Lord Halifax.

[55] He was a favourite of the King, who made him Commander-in-chief in Lord Shelburne’s Administration, and he was afterwards a Field-Marshal.--E.

[56] Henry, second Viscount Palmerston, the grandson of the first Viscount. He was a very accomplished nobleman. At this time he was only 26 years old.--E.

[57] Almon was a bookseller and political writer, as well as a printer, in all which capacities he received frequent employment from the extreme section of the Liberal party. He was a bustling, self-important personage, whose zeal and fidelity brought him into a certain degree of intimacy with several of the leading men of his day, and he was thus enabled to collect the information which occasionally presents itself in his works. His life of Lord Chatham, though not to be generally depended upon as an authentic narration, contains some curious anecdotes illustrative of the political disputes of that period, and is in every respect superior to his life and letters of Wilkes--an insipid, tedious, and disgusting book, particularly discreditable to its author, as he was in possession of materials that might have yielded both interest and instruction. Almon, in his latter days, was unfortunate in business, and died very poor at an advanced age in 1805.--E.

[58] Sir Thomas Denison died in the autumn of this year. His memory was honoured by an epitaph from the pen of his friend Lord Mansfield, very long and very dull. It is said of him “that besides being conversant with the different branches of the profession, he was in an eminent degree master of the learning of a special pleader.” Memoirs of Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, p. 13.--E.

[59] This enlightened judge and most amiable man was the second son of Robert Wilmot, of Osmaston, Derbyshire, and brother of Sir Robert Wilmot, for some years the Chief Secretary in Ireland. He subsequently became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, but with great reluctance, for he says in one of his letters, “The acting junior in the commission is a spectre I started at; but the sustaining the office alone, I must refuse at all events. I will not give up the peace of my mind to any earthly consideration whatever. Bread and water are nectar and ambrosia, compared with the supremacy of a court of justice.” He retired from the Bench in 1771, and died in 1792, aged 82, leaving one of the most spotless characters to be found on the roll of British judges. A selection of his judgments and opinions was published by his son. They are remarkable for elegance and perspicuity, and their learning and acuteness cause them to be still highly prized. The memoir of him already cited is a pleasing tribute to the memory of a good father by a good son.--E.

[60] The resolutions were not 35 in number, but 55.--E.

[61] The late Lord Essex informed the Editor that one of the Under-secretaries of that day had often said to him, “Mr. Grenville lost America because he read the American despatches, which none of his predecessors ever did.” There is no doubt that the business of the colonies was despatched in a very slovenly manner--or, to use Mr. Burke’s words, it was treated “with a salutary neglect;” and the many volumes of Minutes of Colonial Affairs still preserved at the Board of Trade, relate generally to such insignificant transactions as to be almost ludicrous.

[62] Colonel Martin Bladen, M. P. He had in earlier life shown his industry by a translation of Cæsar, which he dedicated to the Duke of Marlborough, under whom he served in the German wars. He was made Sub-comptroller of the Mint in 1714, and one of the Board of Trade in 1717, and might have risen higher if he had chosen. He died at an advanced age in 1746. See more of him in Warton’s notes to the Dunciad.--E.

[63] I say _acknowledged_, because they thought it prudent, in their quarrel with the Parliament, to shelter themselves under the banner of the Crown, and because they founded themselves on their charters, which were grants from the Crown. At the same time there were some men amongst them of a more democratic spirit. It was much talked of at this era, that a wealthy merchant in one of the provinces had said, “They say King George is a very honest fellow; I should like to smoke a pipe with him,” so little conception had they in that part of the world, of the majesty of an European monarch! The Crown could not take advantage of the Americans throwing themselves into the arms of prerogative, because the Americans did it to shun paying taxes, which the Parliament was inclined to grant.

[64] In January, 1769.

[65] Colonel Barré’s eloquent invective is the only portion of the debate that has been preserved. It is directed chiefly against an observation of Mr. Grenville, that the Americans were “children planted by our care and nourished by our indulgence.” It has been often reprinted. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 38. Mr. Adolphus, in a note to vol. i. p. 171, throws doubts on the authenticity of the report, and there is nothing in Colonel Barré’s character to make it improbable that he may have been his own reporter, and not a very faithful one.--E.

[66] Barbarossa and Athelstan.