accompanied by a petticoat, was sometimes fastened on a gallows, and sometimes committed to the flames. "Blood Full of Prerogative."-In a conversation with Boswell in 1775, Dr. Johnson thus summed up the character of the Earl of Bute, who, when Prime Minister in 1762, had put Johnson on the pension list: "Our several ministers in this reign have outbid each other in concessions to the people. Lord Bute, though a very honourable man-a man who meant well, a man who had his blood full of prerogative-was a theoretical statesman, a book-minister, and thought the country could be governed by the influence of the Crown alone." He went on to say, "There is now no prime minister: there is only an agent for government in the House of Commons. We are governed by the Cabinet, but there is no one head there since Sir Robert Walpole's time." A Minute Gun Speech.-Lord Bute delivered a speech in favour of the Cider Bill in the House of Lords, on the 28th March, 1763, in reply to Lord Hardwicke, who opposed the measure. His delivery on this occasion was so particularly slow and solemn that Charles Townshend, standing on the steps of the throne, called out, in an audible whisper, "Minute guns!" These," says Lord Campbell, "might be considered 66 as announcing the funeral of Lord Bute's Ministry.” WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM. The Terrible Cornet.-The antagonist whom William Pitt first encountered, on his entering into public life (after having served in the Blues), was the veteran Walpole, who instinctively dreaded him the moment he heard his voice, and exclaimed, "We must muzzle that terrible cornet of horse!"-Lord Brougham's "Statesmen." Chatham's Personal Characteristics.-Those who saw him in his decay (writes Macaulay)—when his health was broken, when his mind was untuned, when he had been removed from that stormy assembly of which he thoroughly knew the temper, and over which he possessed unbounded influence, to a small, a torpid, and an unfriendly audience-say that his speaking was then, for the most part, a low, monotonous muttering, audible only to those who sat close to him; that when violently excited he sometimes raised his voice for a few minutes, but that it soon sank again into an unintelligible murmur. Such was the Earl of Chatham; but such was not William Pitt. His figure, when he first appeared in Parliament, was strikingly graceful and commanding, his features high and noble, his eye full of fire. His voice, even when it sank to a whisper, was heard to the remotest benches; and when he strained it to its full extent, the sound rose like the swell of an organ of a great cathedral, shook the house with its peal, and was heard through lobbies and down staircases to the Court of Requests and the precincts of Westminster Hall. He cultivated all these eminent advantages with the most assiduous care. His action is described by a very malignant observer as equal to that of Garrick. His play of countenance was wonderful; he frequently disconcerted a hostile orator by a single glance of indignation or scorn. Every tone, from the impassioned cry to the thrilling aside, was perfectly at his command. It is by no means improbable that the pains which he took to improve his great personal advantages had, in some respects, a prejudicial operation, and tended to nourish in him that passion for theatrical effect which was one of the most conspicuous blemishes in his character. His Imposing Manner.-In his earlier time, his whole manner is represented as having been beyond conception animated and imposing. Indeed, the things which he effected principally by means of it, or at least which nothing but a most striking and commanding tone could have made it possible to attempt, almost exceed belief. Some of these sallies are, indeed, examples of that approach made to the ludicrous by the sublime which has been charged upon him as a prevailing fault. It is related that once, in the House of Commons, he began a speech with the words, "Sugar, Mr. Speaker,"-and then, observing a smile to pervade the audience, he paused, looked fiercely around, and with a loud voice, rising in its notes and swelling into vehement anger, he is said to have pronounced again the word "Sugar!" three times; and having thus quelled the House, and extinguished every appearance of levity or laughter, turned round and disdainfully asked, "Who will laugh at sugar now?"*—. Brougham's" Statesmen." Fixing a Charge.-On one occasion Chatham said, "Who are the evil advisers of his Majesty? I would say to them, Is it you? Is it you? Is it you?" (pointing to the ministers, until he came near Lord Mansfield). There were several lords around him, and Lord Chatham said, “My lords, please to take your seats." When they had sat down, he pointed to Lord Mansfield, and said, "Is it you? Methinks Felix trembles." 66 Compelling a Retractation.-Charles Butler relates that Mr. Moreton, the Chief Justice of Chester, happened to say in the House, King, Lords, and Commons, or (directing his eye towards Pitt), as that right honourable member would call them, Commons, Lords, and King." Pitt arose with great deliberation, and called to order. "I have," he said, "heard frequently in this House doctrines which have surprised me; but now my blood runs cold. I desire the words of the honourable member may be taken down." The clerks of the House wrote the words. "Bring them to me," said Pitt, in his loudest voice. By this time Mr. Moreton was frightened out of his senses. "Sir," he said, addressing himself to the Speaker, "I am sorry to have given any offence to the right honourable member or to the House. I meant nothing. King, Lords, and Commons-Lords, King, and Commons-Commons, Lords, and King; tria juncta in uno. I meant nothing; indeed, I meant nothing.” “I don't wish to push the matter further," said Pitt. "The moment a man * Mr. Disraeli wrote, in his "Life of Bentinck :" "Sugar was an article of colonial produce which had been embarrassing, if not fatal, to many governments. Strange that a manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age should so frequently occasion political disaster." acknowledges his error, he ceases to be guilty. I have a great regard for the honourable member, and, as an instance of that regard, I give him this advice: whenever that member means nothing, I recommend him to say nothing." Chatham and the French Minister.-A letter published in the "Grenville Papers," from Mr. Jenkinson to Mr. Grenville, June 23rd, 1761, contains the following passage: "Bussi is horrified with Mr. Pitt's presence, which makes him act in the manner he does." The editor of the Papers adds: "In one of Stanley's most secret letters to Mr. Pitt, he says, M. de Bussi was nominated minister at our court before the expedition against Belleisle was even thought of here. When the Duc de Choiseul informed me of the awe with which he was struck by you, he said he was not surprised at it-car le pauvre diable tremblait de peur en partant; he was so much frightened that he wrote for a passport to return. The Duc showed me this request in his own hand-the Duc was with the King, at Marli, when he received it.. His reflection upon it was: Apparemment, sire, qu'il a deplû à M. Pitt, qui l'aura fait sauter par les fenêtres.' I replied, 'Je n'aurais pas trouvé bon dans ce cas de faire la même gambade par manière de représailles.' Peremptory Orders.-Earl Russell writes of Pitt: "He commanded his expeditions against France by placing a sheet of paper over the orders he gave, and leaving at the bottom of the page on which they were written only room for the signatures of the Lords of the Admiralty." And again: "My grandfather, Lord Torrington, told me that the first William Pitt sent a messenger to the Admiralty that the Channel fleet must sail on the Tuesday following. The Board of Admiralty answered that it was impossible that the fleet could be ready by Tuesday. Mr. Pitt rejoined that in that case he should recommend to the King to name a new Board of Admiralty. The Channel fleet sailed on the Tuesday." His Oratory.-Macaulay observes, in his essay on Chatham, "He was no speaker of set speeches. His few prepared discourses were complete failures. The elaborate panegyric which he pronounced on General Wolfe was considered as the very worst of all his performances. 'No man,' says a critic who had often heard him, ever knew so little what he was going to say.'. Indeed, his facility amounted to a vice. He was not the master, but the slave of his own speech. So little self-command had he when once he felt the impulse, that he did not like to take part in a debate when his mind was full of an important secret of state. 'I must sit still,' he once said to Lord Shelburne on such an occasion; for, when once I am up, everything that is in my mind comes out."-Lord Brougham remarks," He was prolix in the whole texture of his discourse, and he was certainly the first who introduced into our Senate the practice, adopted in the American War by Mr. Burke, and continued by others, of long speeches speeches of two and three hours-by which oratory has gained little, and business less."-Grattan said, "I heard him several times when I was at the Temple-on the American War, on the King's speech in 1770, and on the privileges of Parliament. He was very great, and very odd. He spoke in a style of conversation; not, however, what I expected; it was not a speech, for he never came with a prepared harangue. His style was not regular oratory, like Cicero or Demosthenes, but it was very fine and very elevated. He appeared more like a grave character advising than mingling in the debate. His gesture was always graceful; he was an incomparable actor. Had it not been so, it would have appeared ridiculous. His address to the tapestry* and to Lord Effingham's memory required a fine actor, and he was that actor." Employment of Indians by Chatham.-The Earl of Chatham's famous speech against the employment of Indians in the war with the American colonies, was followed by his adversaries (soon afterwards, if not at the time) with the retort that he himself had employed Indians in a similar conflict. The following particulars were communicated to Lord Brougham by "a most accomplished and venerable person, the ornament of a former age," and appear in an appendix to the "Sketches of Statesmen of the Time of George III." :-"The very same thing had been done in the former war carried on in Canada, by his authority and under his own immediate superintendence; the French had arrayed a tribe of these savage warriors against us, and we, without scruple, arrayed another against them. This he thought fit to deny in the most positive manner, although the ministers offered to produce documents written by himself that proved it, from among the papers at the Secretary's office. A warm debate ensued, and at length Lord Amherst, the general who commanded our troops in that Canadian war, was so loudly appealed to on all sides, that it compelled him to rise, and most unwillingly (for he greatly respected Lord Chatham) falter out a few words; enough, however, to acknowledge the fact a fact admitted generally, and even assumed by the Opposition lords who spoke afterwards. They seemed to lay the question quietly by, as far as it concerned Lord Chatham's veracity, and only insisted upon the difference between the two wars-the one foreign, the other civil; arguing, also, that we might have been under some necessity of using retaliation, since the French certainly first began the practice so justly abhorred. The Annual Register for 1777 states that Mr. Burke took the same course in the House of Commons. Upon hearing what had passed in the House of Lords, Lord Bute exclaimed with astonishment, Did Pitt really deny it? Why, I have letters of his still by me, singing Io Paans over the advantages we gained through our Indian allies.' Could what he thus said have been untrue, when it was almost a soliloquy spoken rather before than to his wife and daughters, the only persons present? The letters he mentioned were neither official nor confidential, but such common notes as might pass between him and Lord Chatham while still upon a footing of some intimacy. It must be observed that, in 1777, Lord Bute had long withdrawn from all political connections, lived in great "I invoke the genius of the Constitution. From the tapestry that adorns these walls the immortal ancestor of this noble lord frowns with indignation at the disgrace of his country. In vain did he defend the liberty, and establish the religion of Britain, against the tyranny of Rome, if these worse than Popish cruelties and inquisitorial practices are endured among us."-Speech against the Employment of Indians in the War with America. retirement, and had no intercourse whatever with the people then in power." Strong Terms respecting a King's Speech.-The Speech from the Throne in 1770, respecting the affair of Falkland's Island, had stated that the Spanish Government had disowned the act of its officer. Lord Chatham said: "There never was a more odious, a more infamous falsehood imposed on a great nation. It degrades the King, it insults the Parliament. His Majesty has been advised to affirm an absolute falsehood. My Lords, I beg your attention, and I hope I shall be understood when I repeat that it is an absolute, a palpable falsehood. The King of Spain disowns the thief, while he leaves him unpunished, and profits by his theft. In vulgar English, he is the receiver of stolen goods, and should be treated accordingly." The Dignity of the House of Commons.-Henry Fox, writing to Lord Hartington on the subject of the Berwick election in 1754, at which Wilkes, although unsuccessful, spent between 3000l. and 4000l., says: "Mr. Wilkes, a friend it seems of Pitt's, petitioned against the younger Delaval, chose at Berwick, on account of bribery only. The younger Delaval made a speech on his being thus attacked, full of wit, humour, and buffoonery, which kept the House in a continued roar of laughter. Mr. Pitt came down from the gallery and took it up in his highest tone of dignity. He was astonished when he heard what had been the occasion of their mirth. Was the dignity of the House of Commons on so sure foundations that they might venture themselves to shake it? Had it not, on the contrary, by gradations, been diminishing for years, till now we were brought to the very brink of the precipice, where, if ever, a stand must be made?"-Lord Waldegrave's " Memoirs.” A Forecast of Reform.-In a debate on the right of Parliament to tax the American colonies, in December, 1765, Pitt made the following remarks: "There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number. Or will you tell me that he is represented by any representative of a borough ?—a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw? This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of It does not deserve a serious refutation." a man. Stabbing the Constitution.-In the debate (May 1st, 1770) which arose on Lord Marchmont's famous midnight motion, "That any interference of the Lords respecting the Middlesex election would be unconstitutional," Lord Chatham exclaimed, "If the Constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark and midnight hour." A Confession of Error.-No one (writes Coxe) can suspect Pitt of paying a tribute of applause to the memory of Walpole from mean and |