Hardwicke. The family of Hardwicke was neither rich nor old; he owed his elevation solely to himself, to high character, extensive knowledge, and eminent abilities. He was born in 1690, the son of an attorney at Dover; and at the early age of twenty-two we find him amongst the smaller contributors to the Spectator.* He was first brought forward in public life by Newcastle and Stanhope, of whom the former named him a Member of Parliament in 1718, and the latter, Solicitor General in 1720.† Rising through the different stages of his profession, and distinguishing himself in all, he at length, in 1737, became Chancellor on the death of Lord Talbot, and continued such for nearly twenty years. Never was that high office more worthily or honourably filled. If we compare him to Somers-yet how difficult to assign the palm between two such mighty names!-we should say, perhaps, that Somers was the more distinguished as a statesman, but Yorke the superior as a magistrate. His decisions have ever been revered as a great landmark in our law, nor has calumny once dared to breathe against the uprightness of his motives. Amidst a degenerate age-while a too prevalent corruption had deeply tainted the State, his Judge's ermine, like the fleece of Gideon, shone forth unsullied and pure. As an orator, he was never warm or impassioned, but clear, weighty, and convincing. When he rose in debate, it seemed, says Lord Lyttleton, like Public Wisdom speaking. His knowledge, high as it soared in his own department, was not confined to it: in literature he was accomplished; with foreign affairs well acquainted. Lord Waldegrave, who does not praise him as a statesman, owns, that even in that capacity he had been the main support of the Duke of Newcastle's administration.§ The principal blemish which his enemies imputed to him, and probably not without some truth, was avarice; yet, it should be borne in mind that Chancellors are easily, but unjustly exposed to this charge, from being contrasted with their colleagues and associates, men in general of hereditary fortunes and large expense, whilst the Head of the Law, on the contrary, must endeavour to found a family, and earn an estate, and not leave his son, as a poor Peer, a burthen on his country. This endeavour every thoughtless spendthrift or envious detractor may call avarice; but should not the Historian award to it a nobler name?1 Of the others who had been Walpole's colleagues, Lord Wilmington, though nominally at the head of the Government, was justly regarded both by his own subordinates and by the public as a mere cypher. The Pelhams, namely, the Duke of Newcastle and his bro Park's Continuation of Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors, vol. iv. p. 267. Mr. Yorke was the author of the letter on travelling, in No. 364, signed Philip Homebred. † Boyer's Political State, vol. xix. p. 351. See H. Walpole's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 303. [On the subject of Lord Hardwicke's life and character, see the biography of him in Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. v.; and the "Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke by George Harris, Esq.,” three volumes 8vo. London, 1847.] ther, backed by Lord Harrington, cowered beneath the storm that had overwhelmed their late chief; they were supported by the still powerful influence of that chief, from his retirement at Houghton, and by the good opinion of their Royal master; but they directed their views chiefly to future opportunities, and prudently awaited the clearing of the sky. On the opposite side in the Cabinet were Mr. Sandys, Lords Winchelsea, Tweeddale, Gower, and Carteret; the latter considered by the people, and being in fact the new Prime Minister. His character, which I have elsewhere more fully portrayed,* was a strange medley of brilliant abilities and of boyish freaks. Sometimes astonishing and overawing his colleagues by his genius, at other moments he must have become their laughing-stock, as when he insisted upon reading to them in Council the love letters he received from Lady Sophia Fermor, a young beauty who became his second wife. "He is never sober," writes Horace Walpole, "and his rants are amazing, but so are his parts and his spirit." The period of his Government was called "the Drunken Administration," in allusion partly to his convivial habits, but describing also his dashing, bold, and buoyant temper. We are told that on coming to power, he was base enough to think, and rash enough to say publicly, that England could only be governed by corruption. He was admirably skilled in all foreign affairs as well as languages, and speedily gained the King's highest favour by going all lengths in his Hanoverian measures. But intent as he was upon diplomatic negotiations and Royal smiles, he neglected all those smaller but necessary cares, by which alone party influence can be acquired or retained. On one occasion we are told, that when the Chief Justice, Willes, came to apply to him for an appointment, "What is it to me," cried Carteret, "who is a Judge and who a Bishop? It is my business to make Kings and Emperors, and to maintain the balance of Europe!" "Then,' answered the Chief Justice, "those who want to be Judges or Bishops will apply to those who will condescend to make it their business!"§ And so, indeed, it proved. The disposal of patronage was a labour of love to the Pelhams, and to them accordingly the whole pack of place-hunters-always a large one-repaired. Thus it happened, that in the race of power, which had begun even now, from the declining health of Wilmington, and for the spoils of his succession, Lord Carteret, immeasurably superior as he was in genius to the Pelhams, far higher as he stood at one time, both in Royal and popular regard, sunk down, overpowered beneath their active, consistent, and decorous mediocrity. The great object of George the Second at this time was, to appear, • See Vol. I. p. 309. †To Sir H. Mann, November 30, 1743, and April 15, 1744. This remark is eagerly fastened upon by Mr. Carte, and he shrewdly adds, that "the world sooner forgets an ill action in a man than an imprudent speech." To the Pretender, May 4, 1743. Appendix. § See H. Walpole's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 147. in emulation of William the Third, at the head of a confederate army, and to assist his Electoral dominions as largely as possible from his kingdom's resources. With this view, had the British troops been sent to Flanders; with this view, had they been reinforced by 6000 Hessians, taken into British pay, under a convention which Walpole had not long since concluded, and which forms one of the least justifiable acts of his whole administration. But it was now desired to extend this measure still further, and more directly to Hanover, by hiring from the British Treasury 16,000 soldiers of that country. Much as Carteret had clamoured against such a system, while yet in Opposition, he now readily acceded to it, thereby gaining at once the King's highest confidence; it was also, strange as it seems, concurred in by Lord Bath and Mr. Sandys, and adopted by the Cabinet. But when at the opening of Parliament the King's Speech announced the 16,000 Hanoverians, and when hints of British pay for them were thrown out in the Ministerial ranks, it may easily be conceived how adverse was the feeling excited in the country. The hiring of foreigners in bands of mercenaries, however consonant to the rude military system of the darkest ages, is condemned alike by religion and natural reason: it is neither praiseworthy in those who sell their blood, nor in those who buy it; and is rightful only when the former have some national interest of their own in the quarrel, and when the latter have already raised, armed, and tried their own force, and found it unequal to their enemy's. But, independently of these general reflections, it seemed very far from constitutional to have taken a step of such importance, and so great extent, without the previous deliberation and consent of Parliament. But even waiving this also, there still remained the chief grievance which the people felt or the Opposition urged-the glaring partiality to Hanover. It was heaping fuel on a fire that already burned high. Since 1714, it had always been the cry that Hanover was preferred to England: that cry had resounded sometimes with and sometimes without reason; but never had more just cause been afforded it than now. The nation observed, that though Hanover was far more immediately concerned in the event of the present war than England, it did not appear to have contributed any thing to the support of the common cause. It was also not left unnoticed that, on this occasion, Hanover had made a far more profitable bargain for herself than in 1702, when Marlborough had negotiated for the hire of 10,000 men from Luneburg, there being in that contract no stipulation either for levy or recruit money, whereas, in this present case, these amounted to 160,000l.* It was said, that a force to the same amount might be Compare the Commons' Journals, November 19, 1703, and December 3, 1742. The additional items in the latter are as follows: safely spared to go abroad, from the 23,000 soldiers whom we idly maintained at home. It was contended likewise, that if we must have mercenaries we ought to have taken any rather than from Hanover, because we might have engaged the Prince whose troops we hired, to join us in espousing the cause of the Queen of Hungary, and because, if the Hanoverians were once taken, our future administrations would always be ready to gratify the King, by finding pretexts for retaining them. Nay, the more eager partisans carried their exaggeration so far as to declare that the Act of Settlement, providing that Great Britain should never engage in war on account of Hanover, had been violated, and they did not even shrink from the inference to which that declaration seemed to lead. The ambiguity of the King's Speech as to the pay of the Hanoverians, restrained discussion upon them, until that pay was actually moved for in the House of Commons. All doubts, however, were speedily dispelled. On the 10th of December, Sir William Yonge, as Secretary at War, proposed a grant of 657,000l. for defraying the cost of these troops, from August 1742 till December 1743. He defended the proposal with his usual volubility, and was supported (with signal courage, considering former professions), by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. But several eloquent voices were raised against them. "As the King," said Sir John St. Aubyn, "has every other virtue, so he has, undoubtedly, a most passionate love for his native country; a passion the more easily to be flattered, because it arises from virtue. I wish that those who have the honour to be of his councils would imitate his Royal example, and show a passion for their native country too!"* The invective of Pitt was as bitter, and more direct. "It is now too apparent that this great, this powerful, this formidable kingdom is considered only as a province to a despicable electorate, and that, in consequence of a scheme formed long ago and invariably pursued, these troops are hired only to drain this unhappy nation of its money."+ Yet, on a division, the Ministers could muster 260 votes against 193-a clear sign how many of the patriots had combined with Walpole's friends, and how weak, even against the most unpopular proposals, was the new Opposition. It was on another such debate, relative to the British troops lying unemployed in Flanders, that Murray, the new Solicitor General, made his first speech in Parliament: it was received with high applause, and was answered by Pitt; and observers could foresee, even from this first trial, that the two statesmen would henceforth be great rivals.t As, however, the principal members of the Cabinet and leaders of Till December, 1743, Horse 6,912 7,914 These charges are inaccurately stated in Tindal.-There is also a provision for an excessive number of staff officers. * Parl. Hist. vol. xii. p. 952. † Ibid. p. 1035. H. Walpole to Sir H. Mann, December 9, 1742. the Opposition were now in the House of Peers, it was there that the main debate on the Hanoverian troops ensued. The question was brought forward by Lord Stanhope, son and successor of the late Prime Minister. Philip, second Earl Stanhope, was born in 1714, and therefore only seven years old at his father's decease. He had great talents, but fitter for speculation than for practical objects of action. He made himself one of the best-Lalande used to say the best-mathematicians in England of his day, and was likewise deeply skilled in other branches of science and philosophy. The Greek language was as familiar to him as the English; he was said to know every line of Homer by heart. In public life, on the contrary, he was shy, ungainly, and embarrassed. So plain was he in his dress and deportment that, on going down to the House of Lords to take his seat, after a long absence on the Continent, the door-keeper could not believe he was a Peer, and pushed him aside, saying, "Honest man, you have no business in this place."-"I am sorry, indeed," replied the Earl, "if honest men have no business here!" From his first outset in Parliament he took part with vehemence against the administration of Walpole.* He had been educated chiefly at Utrecht and Geneva, and the principles he had there formed or imbibed leaned far more to the democratical than to the kingly or aristocratical branches of the constitution; they are even termed "republican" by Horace Walpole,† but unjustly, for, like his father, he was a most zealous asserter of the Hanover succession.1 The speech of Stanhope on this occasion was pre-composed and full of strong arguments, but delivered, as we are told, "with great tremblings and agitations." He said, "the country these troops come from makes it probable they will frequently be taken, and affairs abroad embroiled for the sake of lending them. What would Poland think of taking Saxons into pay? Why should not some regard be had to the opinion of the people, who will always judge right of the end though not of the means, as well as to the inclinations of rulers who may aim wrong in both?" and he concluded with a motion for an address to the King, that he would be graciously pleased to exonerate his people of those Mercenaries, who were taken into pay last year, without consent of Parliament. He was ably * "We are to have Lord Rockingham and Lord Stanhope (who are just come of age) in the House of Lords; the first of whom I hear will be with us, the latter against us. All the Stanhopes and Spencers are taught to look on a Walpole as one they are to hate by inheritance." Lord Hervey to Horace Walpole the elder, December 23, 1735. Coxe's Walpole. † H. Walpole's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 100. Bishop Secker's Diary, February 1, 1743. ["It was this Earl Stanhope who facilitated Dr. Franklin's intercourse with Lord Chatham during the negotiations in 1775, for reconciling Great Britain and the American Colonies. In his "Account of Negotiations in London," &c., Dr. Franklin has recorded the friendly attentions which he received from Earl Stanhope and his son Lord Mahon, (afterwards the third Earl Stanhope,) in bringing about the important interviews with the great English Statesman and friend of the Colonial cause. To the American statesman, Lord Stanhope was no doubt drawn also by a sympathy in scientific pursuit. See " Aocount of Negotiations," &c. &c. Sparks's Franklin's Works, vol. v.] |