266 In a letter of explanation to Lady Chatham, written a fortnight after his interview with Mr. Pitt at Hampstead, Lord Temple admits that his separation from Mr. George Grenville was conditional upon “a public and general union of parties taking place.” This union had long been one of the great objects of Mr. Pitt’s ambition, but was at this time wholly impracticable, as Lord Temple well knew; and taken together with the proposal of Lord Lyttelton for President of the Council, the admission goes far to support Walpole’s statement, that Lord Temple had determined not to take office without his brother. Indeed the connections which Lord Temple had lately formed, and not less than the opinions he had expressed in Parliament, must have rendered his acceptance of Mr. Pitt’s overtures out of the question, unless, to use his own words, he had chosen “to be stuck into the Ministry as a great cypher at the head of the Treasury.”—(Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 468.)—E.

267 Nevertheless, had their former connection remained unbroken, Lord Temple might have again proved a valuable colleague to Mr. Pitt. The restless spirit and defective temper, that hurried him when in opposition into excesses so prejudicial to his character, had not prevented his identifying himself completely with Mr. Pitt while in office in all great questions of public policy, and though he had no claim to superior merit as a speaker, his knowledge of the world, fixedness of purpose, and close attention to the details of business, had often compensated for the absence of those qualities in Mr. Pitt. Above all, he was really loved and trusted by him, and through Lady Chatham’s intervention, had access to him when it was denied to every one else. Neither of them prospered after their separation, and Lord Temple had the mortification of finding himself alternately neglected, distrusted, and opposed by the associates of his earlier days during the remainder of his life.—E.

268 I had written Pitt by mistake, and forget now whom Lord Temple pretended to have recommended. Most probably it was the Duke of Bedford.

269 A pamphlet in defence, or rather in praise, of the part taken by Lord Temple in those negotiations was soon afterwards published, under the title of “An Inquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honourable Commoner.” It is justly described by Lord Chesterfield as “scurrilous and scandalous, and betraying private conversation.” It is believed to have been written by Mr. Humphry Cotes, but Lord Temple was suspected to have furnished the materials; and it probably is to this discreditable piece of revenge, more than to the other libels in which Lord Temple was concerned, that Lord Rockingham alluded when he noticed some years afterwards the objection of the Whigs to act under his Lordship.—E.

270 Two letters, from Mr. Townshend to Mr. Pitt, on the offer of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, are given in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. pp. 456, 464.—E.

271 Sir Charles Pratt, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

272 He was Lord Chamberlain, and had married the only daughter of the late Duke of Devonshire, niece of Lord John Cavendish.

273 Lady Henrietta Harley, sole daughter of Edward second Earl of Oxford, and widow of William third Duke of Portland.

274 They contested the Parliamentary interest of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, where their estates lay. More of this rivalship will appear hereafter.

275 Sir James Lowther had married Lady Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of the Earl of Bute.

276 Francis Russell, Marquis of Tavistock, only son of John Duke of Bedford.

277 Richard Vernon, Esq., had married the Countess-dowager of Ossory, youngest daughter of John first Earl Gower.

278 He continued the leader of the Rockingham party in the House of Commons until his death, which took place at Nice in 1775. He left a family of eleven children, of whom one of his younger sons, the Rev. Dr. Dowdeswell, Canon of Christ Church, and Rector of Stansford Rivers, is the present possessor of his estates, having succeeded General Dowdeswell, an elder brother.—E.

279 Neither had he neglected his interests whilst he held the Great Seal. He had actually given a great sinecure to a trustee for his three daughters.—E.

280 Mr. Burke’s well-known tract,—a masterpiece of its kind.—E.

281 The pamphlet has been noticed in p. 345. An attack on Lord Temple also appeared, most bitter and personal, which was ascribed to Mr. Pitt. A curious extract from it is given in Belsham’s History, vol. i. p. 210.—E.

282 Brother of the Earl of Hardwicke and Charles Yorke.

283 The Cabinet Council is composed of the First Lord of the Treasury, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the two Secretaries of State, the Lord President, and the Commander-in-Chief; others are now and then added. Lord Chatham, as first Minister, was now necessarily one.

284 Admiral Augustus Keppel, brother of Lord Albemarle.

285 Son of the Comte de Virri, the late Envoy from Turin. Baron de la Perriere, who succeeded to his father’s title, married Miss Speed, an Englishwoman, mentioned in Mr. Gray’s long story, and was afterwards ambassador at Madrid and Paris.

286 Joseph, second son of the Empress Queen Maria Theresa, and of Francis Duke of Lorrain, and Emperor.

287 Count Kaunitz did not retire; he preserved his influence with occasional fluctuations during the life of Joseph, and he continued nominal Prime Minister until his own death in 1794.—E.

288 Hans Stanley, employed to negotiate the late peace.

289 Sir George Maccartney had travelled with Lord Holland’s eldest son. The Czarina obtained a Polish blue riband for him, which he afterwards laid aside on being made Knight of the Bath, while Secretary in Ireland to Lord Townshend, to whom he was recommended by Lord Bute, whose second daughter, Lady Jane Stuart, he married. [He subsequently filled many other employments, having been in succession Governor of Grenada, Governor of Madras, Ambassador to China, and Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. In 1794–5 he was created Earl Maccartney, and in 1796 an English Peer. He died in 1806. He had the merit of being amiable, disinterested, and well informed. His life has been written by his secretary, Mr. John Barrow, in 2 vols. 4to.—E.]

290 The letters that passed between Lord Chatham and his colleagues on the proposed Northern Alliance may be seen in the second volume of his Correspondence. The scheme was a noble one, and had probably been contemplated by Mr. Pitt during his former Administration, as it certainly would have been an appropriate termination of his brilliant prosecution of the war. Unhappily, Lord Bute’s diplomacy had altered the feeling of foreign powers towards this country, and the King of Prussia, especially, was thoroughly alienated from British connections—partly from personal resentment, partly from distrust of the strength of the Government. His Majesty received the proposal most ungraciously; and it certainly reflects no credit on Lord Chatham’s discretion, to have engaged in this difficult negotiation so precipitately. He had not even consulted Sir Andrew Mitchell, the minister at Berlin—his personal friend, and the person, above others, best qualified to furnish correct information as to the views of the King of Prussia.—E.

291 George Brudenel, Earl of Cardigan, had married the second daughter and co-heiress of the last Duke of Montagu, and had taken the name of Montagu.

292 Sir T. Robinson, Lord Grantham, formerly Secretary of State.

293 Vide Parl. Hist. p. 251, for an eloquent summary of the arguments against the suspending and dispensing prerogative.—E.

294 Henry Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, Knight of the Garter, and afterwards Duke of Newcastle.

295 John, only son of Sir John Shelley, (whom he succeeded in the baronetage,) by Margaret Pelham, his second wife, sister of Thomas Duke of Newcastle.

296 Sir John Shelley had also a personal claim on Lord Chatham, for, although on confidential terms with Lord Temple, he had not followed that nobleman into opposition. He died in 1783.—E.

297 George third Lord Edgcumbe, [and first Earl Edgcumbe, distinguished himself on some occasions in the navy, and rose to the rank of Rear-Admiral of the Blue in 1762. Before entering the House of Lords, which he did in 1761, he sat in the Commons for Fowey. At his death, which happened in 1795, he was Admiral of the Blue, Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Cornwall, &c. &c.—E.]

298 This letter, a very creditable one to Mr. Conway’s feelings and good sense, is printed in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 126.—E.

299 Francis Seymour Conway, son of Francis Earl of Hertford.

300 Lord Edgcumbe had great weight in Devonshire and Cornwall.

301 It was a wise intention in no light. Parties are the preservative of a free Government. The King and Lord Mansfield succeeded, though Lord Chatham did not, in breaking all parties; and what was the consequence? that everybody ran to Court, and voted for whatever the Court desired. Lord Chatham, who forfeited his popularity, and set all parties at defiance, sank into an individual of no importance.

302 It did avail so much, that Grenville fabricated, during his opposition, the famous bill for trying elections by select Committees, likely to give a sore wound to the influence of the Crown, but which, hoping to return to power, he limited in its duration; but it has since been made permanent.

303 The Duke of Grafton.

304 Lord Chatham did not long preserve his power, and Lord Edgcumbe soon came into place again, having first revenged himself on the Earl in this humorous epigram:

305 By Mr. Richard Bentley, son of Dr. Bentley.

306 According to Mr. Flood, there was little concert, and not much ability shown by the Government in this debate, except in the speech of Townshend, which was “very artful, conciliatory, able, and eloquent. He stated the matter quite anew, disclaiming the officious expressions used by Beckford.”—(Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 144, note.)—E.

307 Of these were the two Onslows, the Townshends, and T. Pelham, all connected with and related to the Duke of Newcastle, who, though sedulous in promoting the resignations, could not prevail on his own family to quit, some of them having during their opposition attached themselves particularly to Lord Chatham. A few more were friends of the Duke of Grafton. Yet with these losses, Lord Rockingham’s party remained a very respectable body for numbers and property. The weakness and incorrigible ambition of their chief, the obstinacy of Lord John Cavendish, the want of judgment in Burke, their own too great delicacy, and the abandoned venality of the age, reduced them to be of no consequence, as will appear: but the Duke of Newcastle’s impotent lust of power, Lord Holland’s daring and well-timed profligacy, Lord Chatham’s haughty folly, and Lord Temple’s unprincipled and selfish thirst of greatness, had baffled all opposition, had counterworked Lord Bute’s incapacity and cowardice; and altogether so smoothed the way, that Lord Mansfield’s superior cowardice and superior abilities at last ventured to act and effect almost all the mischief he burnt to execute against the noblest and happiest Constitution in the world.—Sept. 16th, 1774.

308 A spirited character of Saunders is given in Walpole’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 394. His services at Quebec had endeared him to Lord Chatham, and their political connection was renewed upon his Lordship’s retirement from office. A pleasing letter from him is printed in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 231, on his presenting his portrait for the ball-room at Burton Pynsent in 1772. He died three years after, deservedly lamented both in his profession and by the country.—E.

309 The Duke of Bedford left an interesting account of this negotiation in his private journal. See Cavendish’s debates, vol. i. pp. 591, 596, giving more full details than this book could admit. It confirms the essential parts of Walpole’s narrative, though the reader must draw his own inferences as to the motives of the parties in the transaction.—E.

310 The King, too, ascribed the Duke’s refusal entirely to the interference of the persons around him.—E.

311 Thomas Brand, of the Hoo in Hertfordshire, had married Lady Caroline Pierpoint, half aunt of the Duchess of Bedford. Mr. Brand was an old Whig, but had deserted that party in hopes of getting a peerage by the Duke of Bedford’s interest. When the Duke joined the Court after this, he did obtain a promise that Brand should be a Baron on the first creation, but the latter died before that event arrived.

312 See Walpole’s Letters to Sir Horace Mann, vol. i. p. 320.—E.

313 Nugent was immediately after created an Irish Peer, by the title of Viscount Clare. [His coarse, clever sayings are frequently recorded in Walpole’s Correspondence. He was the friend and patron of Goldsmith, who dedicated to him the amusing jeu d’esprit the “Haunch of Venison,” and he aspired to be a poet himself, with indifferent success. The Ode to Pulteney, however, contains some spirited lines, and it was therefore pronounced by Gray not to be his. His daughter married in 1775 the first Marquis of Buckingham, to whose interest with Mr. Pitt he owed his elevation to an earldom in 1776. He died in 1788, having survived his son, Colonel Nugent. The present Lord Nugent is his grandson, and has succeeded to his Irish Barony.—E.]

314 I include Lord Bute’s faction in the standing force of the Crown, and the Scotch in both: but the facility with which the Duke of Bedford had been ready to abandon Grenville, created a new party, or sub-division, that of Grenville and Lord Temple, and their few friends; for though on the failure of the treaty the outside of union was preserved, they evidently remained two distinct factions, as appeared more than once: nor did Lord Temple ever forgive the intended separation, regarding himself and his brother as one, though the Bedfords had frequently told Grenville that they did not look on themselves as connected with Lord Temple, who had opposed them when they were in power.

315 See an account of this speech in a note to Lord Chatham’s Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 145.—E.

316 If this supposition be true, it is an extraordinary coincidence that the Duke of Richmond should, eleven years later, have made the speech which unquestionably hastened Lord Chatham’s death.—E.

317 A Scotch Peer cannot be made an English one by the act of Union; this is evaded sometimes, as in Lord Lorne’s case, by the heir-apparent being created an English Peer. Lord Lorne seemed not to care whom he courted or quitted, so he did but obtain his end. [This disability, which the decision of the House of Lords in 1711 attached to the Scotch Peerage, was removed in 1782, when the point was referred to the Judges, and they delivered an unanimous opinion that the Peers of Scotland are not disabled from receiving, subsequently to the Union, a patent of Peerage of Great Britain.] (Journals of the Lords, 6 June, 1782; Burnet’s Own Times, 586; 1 Peere Williams, 582; Somerville’s Queen Anne, 459.)—E.

318 The disgraceful practice of nominating Dissenters as Sheriffs, solely with the object of extorting the fines payable on their refusal to act, continued until the spirited resistance of Mr. Evans. The Corporation obtained a judgment against him in the Lord Mayor’s Court, which they expected to be as effectual in his case as it had proved with other contumacious Dissenters; but he appealed to the higher City Courts, and having failed there, carried his plea before the Judge Delegates, who, after a deliberate hearing, decided in his favour. The Corporation then, in turn, appealed to the House of Lords, and the Judges being consulted, Mr. Baron Perrot, the Judge who had distinguished himself by his panegyric on Lord Bute, was the only authority on the Bench that supported the views of the Corporation. The House of Lords accordingly confirmed the sentence of the Delegates. Lord Mansfield’s speech on the occasion, a composition of great ability and eloquence, is reported in the Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 317.—E.

319 The fact, as I have since learnt from Rigby’s own account, who bragged of it long afterwards, stood thus. He and Wedderburne went to Grenville at Wootton, before the Parliament met, and proposed to him to try to take off two shillings in the pound. Grenville, who not only knew the impossibility of sparing so much, and the mischief the country would suffer, but flattered himself he should soon be Minister again, vehemently opposed the plan; however, as they persisted, he compromised the matter, by making them promise they would confine the reduction to one shilling, for which he not only voted but spoke ably, though so much against his opinion. Perhaps he would have done less hurt, if he had joined in the attempt to reduce it two shillings in the pound, which would have appeared so capital a mischief, that it might possibly have miscarried; and, indeed, supposing a possibility of so much conscientiousness in that or the next Parliament, is paying a compliment to them that may be thought to be overstrained.

320 Lord Chatham’s letter to the Duke of Grafton of the 23rd of February, in Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 218.—E.

321 Mr. Dowdeswell shared the prejudice entertained by most country gentlemen against the land-tax, probably as much as the resentment felt by the Rockingham party against Lord Chatham.—E.

322 Sir Edmund Isham, Bart., M. P. for Northamptonshire. He died in 1772.—E.

323 Sir Roger Newdigate, Bart., M. P. for the University of Oxford, and the founder of the prize which bears his name. He died in 1806, aged 87.—E.

324 What was the context, but that Lord Chatham and Grenville were honester men when Ministers than when patriots?

325 Quotation of Pitt on Grenville in a debate mentioned before.

326 See Letters to Sir Horace Mann, vol. i. p. 326.—E.

327 Sir William Maynard, M. P. for Essex, died in 1772.—E.

328 Colonel Henry St. John, brother of Frederick Viscount Bolingbroke. [Many of his letters are given in the Selwyn Correspondence. They are smart and lively. He lived among the wits of his day, and was liked by them. He died in 1818.—E.]

329 Charles Sloane Cadogan, only son of Charles Lord Cadogan. I have said he was attached to Grenville; it was because he thought Grenville likely to come into power again; but when deserted by the Bedfords, Cadogan paid his court to Lord Gower. When Lord North became Minister, he became so servile to him, that being out shooting in Norfolk during the Newmarket season, it was a joke with the persons who returned thence to examine the game going to London, and at every inn was a parcel directed by Cadogan to Lord North. [He married a daughter of Walpole’s favourite sister, Lady Maria Churchill, from whom he was afterwards divorced—a circumstance that ought to be weighed against the severity of this note.—E.]

330 He was made Master of the Mint; and in 1774, when the light guineas were called in and recoined, he was computed to get 30,000l. by his profits on the recoinage.

331 Several letters between Lord Chatham and his colleagues at this time in confirmation of the statement in the text are given in the third volume of the Chatham Correspondence.—E.

332 See vol. iii. of these Memoirs.—E.

333 Robert Jones, Esq., M. P. for Huntingdon, died in 1774.—E.

334 Luke Scrafton, for some years Governor of Bengal. He was the author of “Reflections on the Government of Hindostan, with a short sketch of the History of Bengal, from the year 1739 to 1756; with an Account of the English Affairs to 1758,” 8vo., London, 1762. A second edition was printed in 1770. See an account of his controversy with Mr. Vansittart, in Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century,” vol. ix. p. 573, and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xxxiv. p. 55.—E.

335 This was written in October, 1769.

336 I am assured by my friend Lieutenant-General Sir Richard Bourke, the editor of Mr. Burke’s Correspondence, that this charge is unfounded, and utterly at variance with the statements of Mr. Burke’s private affairs, to be found in his papers.—E.

337 Henry Lyttelton, formerly Governor of Carolina, and youngest brother of George Lord Lyttelton.

338 Francis Russell, only son by Gertrude Leveson, the Duke’s second wife.

339 They were called, in the satires of the time, the Bloomsbury Gang, Bedford House standing in Bloomsbury Square: of these the chief were Earl Gower, Lord Sandwich, and Rigby. Sandwich gloried in his artifices; Rigby was not ashamed of his, but veiled them for better use; Lord Gower had neither feeling, shame, nor remorse. All three were men of parts, and agreeable. Lord Weymouth became an accession, and inferior to none of them in their worse faults; he brought pride into the account, and a less proportion of parts.

340 Lady Tavistock died in 1768 at Lisbon, where she had been sent for the recovery of her health. Hers was really a case of broken heart. From the hour that her husband’s death was made known to her, she drooped until she sank into what she truly designated “the welcome grave.”—E.

341 Walpole’s hatred of the Duke and Duchess of Bedford must have been intense, or his sagacity could have scarcely overlooked, that in censuring Junius he condemns himself. Perhaps he is the more blameable of the two. Junius may have believed the Duke to have been a bad man. Walpole has elsewhere described him as having a good heart. He knew the facts urged by Junius in support of the charge of the Duke being an unnatural parent to be untrue; and yet he not only leaves them uncontradicted, but frames his narration so as to facilitate their belief. The Duke’s memory has been repeatedly vindicated from this cruel aspersion, and never with more generous and indignant eloquence than lately by Lord Brougham.—(Political Sketches, vol. iii.) It has always been understood in the quarters likely to be the best informed, that he felt his son’s loss deeply to the last hour of his life. Instead, however, of yielding to his grief, he endeavoured to employ his thoughts on public business, and the natural fervour of his disposition insensibly engaged him in the scenes before him perhaps more deeply than he was aware of. The meeting he attended at the India House must, as appears from the Company’s books, have been that of the 8th of April, which determined the course to be taken by the Company on the Government propositions: a great question, in which he took the liveliest interest. The force of mind he thus displayed is noticed with commendation in a letter written at the time by David Hume, who, from his connection with Conway, is assuredly an impartial witness.—(Hume to M. de Barbantine, Cav. Debates, vol. i. p. 601.) The absurd charge brought by Junius against the Duchess, of making money by Lord Tavistock’s wardrobe, originated in its having been sold for the benefit of his valet and Lady Tavistock’s maid, according to the general practice of that day.—E.

342 He was brother of the Member for Berkshire, and of Miss Vansittart, favourite of the Princess of Wales, and was lost not long after in a voyage to India, along with Mr. Scrafton, author of an excellent tract on Indian affairs.

343 He not only risked, but lost it in 1783.

344 Three Lords of the Bedchamber, the Earls of Coventry, Eglinton, and Buckinghamshire, were also in the minority. (See Chatham Correspondence, vol. iii.) The Duke of Bedford notices the Debate in his Journal as if he had not felt much interest in the matter. (Cavendish’s Debates, vol. i. p. 601.)—E.