a particular friend of yours opposed the motion, and it was the first time he ever spoke. To keep you not in suspense, though you must have guessed, it was 220. As the speech was very favourably heard, and has done him service, I prevailed with him to give me a copyhere it is : "Mr. Speaker, I have always thought, Sir, that incapacity and inexperience must prejudice the cause they undertake to defend; and it has been diffidence of myself, not distrust of the cause, that has hitherto made me so silent upon a point on which I ought to have appeared so zealous. "While the attempts for this inquiry were made in general terms, I should have thought it presumption in me to stand up and defend measures in which so many abler men have been engaged, and which, consequently, they could so much better support; but when the attack grows more personal, it grows my duty to oppose it more particularly, lest I be suspected of an ingratitude which my heart disdains. But I think, Sir, I cannot be suspected of that, unless my not having abilities to defend my father can be construed into a desire not to defend him. "My experience, Sir, is very small; I have never been conversant in business and politics, and have sat a very short time in this House -with so slight fund, I must much mistrust my power to serve him-especially as in the short time I have sat here, I have seen that not his own knowledge, innocence, and eloquence, have been able to protect him against a powerful and determined party. I have seen, since his retirement, that he has many great and noble friends, who have been able to protect him from farther violence. But, Sir, when no repulses can calm the clamour against him, no motives should sway his friends from openly undertaking his defence. When the King has conferred rewards on his services; when the Parliament has refused its assent to any inquiries of complaint against him; it is but maintaining the King's and our own honour, to reject this motion-for the repeating which, however, I cannot think the authors to blame, as I suppose now they have turned him out, they are willing to inquire whether they had any reason to do so. "I shall say no more, Sir, but leave the material part of this defence to the impartiality, candour, and credit of men who are no ways dependent on him. He has already found that defence, Sir, and I hope he always will! It is to their authority I trust-and to me, it is the strongest proof of innocence, that for twenty years together, no crime could be solemnly alleged against him; and since his dismission, he has seen a majority rise up to defend his character in that very House of Commons in which a majority had overturned his power. As, therefore, Sir, I must think him innocent, I stand up to protect him from injustice-had he been accused, I should not have The author of these letters. There is a fictitious speech printed for this in several Magazines of that time, but which does not contain one sentence of the true one. given the House this trouble: but I think, Sir, that the precedent of what was done upon this question a few days ago, is a sufficient reason, if I had no other, for me to give my negative now." William Pitt, some time after, in the debate, said, how very commendable it was in him to have made the above speech, which must have made an impression upon the House; but if it was becoming in him to remember that he was the child of the accused, that the House ought to remember too that they are the children of their country. It was a great compliment from him, and very artful too.a I forgot to tell you in my last, that one of our men-of-war, commanded by Lord Bamffe, a Scotchman, has taken another register ship, of immense value. You will laugh at a comical thing that happened the other day to Lord Lincoln. He sent the Duke of Richmond word that he would dine with him in the country, and if he would give him leave, would bring Lord Bury with him. It happens that Lord Bury is nothing less than the Duke of Richmond's nephew. The Duke, very properly, sent him word back, that Lord Bury might bring him, if he pleased. I have been plagued all this morning with that oaf of unlicked antiquity, Prideaux, and his great boy. He talked through all Italy, and every thing in all Italy. Upon mentioning Stosch, I asked if he had seen his collection. He replied, very few of his things, for he did not like his company; that he never heard so much heathenish talk in his days. I inquired what it was, and found that Stosch had one day said before him, " that the soul was only a little glue." I laughed so much that he walked off; I suppose, thinking that I be The following note of this debate is from the Bishop of Oxford's diary." March 23. Motion by Lord Limerick, and seconded by Sir J. St. Aubin, on the 9th instant, for a Secret Committee of twenty-one, to examine into the Earl of Orford's conduct for the last ten years of his being chancellor of the exchequer and lord of the treasury. Mr. Pultney said, ministers should always remember the account they must make; that he was against rancour in the inquiry, desired not to be named for the committee, particularly because of a rash word he had used, that he would pursue Sir Robert Walpole to his destruction: that now the minister was destroyed, he had no ill-will to the man; that from his own knowledge and experience of many of the Tories, he believed them to be as sincerely for the King and this family as himself; that he was sensible of the disagreeable situation he was in, and would get out of it as soon as he could. Mr. Sandys spoke for the motion, and said, he desired his own conduct might always be strictly inquired into. Lord Orford's son, and Mr. Ellis spoke well against the motion. It was carried by 252 against 245. Three or four were shut out, who would have been against it. Mr. William Finch against it. The Prince's servants for it. Then Mr. Pultney moved for an address of duty to the King, &c. which he begged might pass without opposition; and accordingly it did so. But Sir W. W. Wynne, and several others, went out of the House; which was by some understood to be disapprobation, by others accident or weariness." Secker MS.-E. b Alexander Ogilvy, sixth Lord Banff, commanded the Hastings man-of-war in 1742 and 1743, and captured, during that time, a valuable outward-bound Spanish register-ship, a Spanish privateer of twenty guns, a French polacca with a rich cargo, and other vessels. 'He died at Lisbon in November 1746, at the early age of twenty-eight.-D. George Lord Bury, afterwards third Earl of Albemarle. His mother was Lady Anne Lennox, sister of the Duke of Richmond.-D. [His lordship served as aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland at the battle of Fontenoy and at Culloden, and commanded in chief at the reduction of the Havannah. He died in 1772.] d Grandson of Dean Prideaux; he was just returned out of Italy, with his son. lieved so too. By the way, tell Stosch that a gold Alectus sold at Lord Oxford's sale for above threescore pounds. Good night, my dear child! I am just going to the ridotto; one hates those places, comes away out of humour, and yet one goes again! How are you? I long for your next letter to answer me. TO SIR HORACE MANN. Downing Street, April 1, 1742. I RECEIVED your letter of March 18th, and would be as particular in the other dates which you have sent me in the end of your letter, but our affairs having been in such confusion, I have removed all my papers in general from hence, and cannot now examine them. I have, I think, received all yours: but lately I received them two days at least after their arrival, and evidently opened; so we must be cautious now what we write. Remember this, for of your last the seal had been quite taken off and set on again. Last Friday we balloted for the Secret Committee. Except the vacancies, there were but thirty-one members absent: five hundred and eighteen gave in lists. At six that evening they named a committee of which Lord Hartington was chairman, (as having moved for it,) to examine the lists. This lasted from that time, all that night, till four in the afternoon of the next day; twenty-two hours without remission. There were sixteen people, of which were Lord Hartington and Coke, who sat up the whole time, and one of them, Velters Cornwall, fainted with the fatigue and heat, for people of all sorts were admitted into the room, to see the lists drawn; it was in the Speaker's chambers. On the conclusion, they found the majority was for a mixed list, but of which the Opposition had the greater number. Here are the two lists, which were given out by each side, but of which people altered several in their private lists. THE COURT LIST, William Bowles. Sir Henry Liddel.• THE OPPOSITION LIST. Sir John Barnard. George Bubb Doddington. Henry Furnese. Earl of Granard. Mr. Hooper.b a Velters Cornwall, Esq. of Moccas Court, in Herefordshire, and member for that Besides the following six which were in both lists : On casting up the numbers, the lists proved thus:— This made eighteen: Mr. Finch, Sir Harry Liddel, and Mr. Talbot, had 258 each, and Hume Campbell 257, besides one in which his name was mis-written, but allowed; out of these four, two were to be chosen it was agreed that the Speaker was to choose them. He, with a resolution not supposed to be in him, as he has been the most notorious affecter of popularity, named Sir Harry Liddel and Mr. Talbot; so that, on the whole, we have just five that we can call our own." These will not be sufficient to stop their pro a He had a place in the Ordnance. b Son of the late lord chancellor, and afterwards a judge. c Afterwards field-marshal. Afterwards King's remembrancer. 8 Afterwards a lord of trade and baronet. Afterwards cofferer. * Afterwards Earl of Lichfield. d Afterwards secretary of the treasury. f Afterwards cofferer. h Afterwards paymaster. i Afterwards a judge. 1 Afterwards treasurer of the navy. m Afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, then cofferer, and then a baron. n Nicholas Fazakerley, Esq. Walpole calls him "a tiresome Jacobite lawyer." He, however, appears to have been a speaker of some weight in the House of Commons, and distinguished himself by his opposition to Lord Hardwicke's mischievous marriage bill in the year 1753.-D. [He died in 1767.] "March 26, 27. The House of Commons balloted for their committee, being called over, and each opening his list at the table, and putting it into a vessel which stood there. This was ended by five. Then a committee began to examine the lists, and sat from that time till four the next afternoon: for, though two lists were given out, many delivered in consisted partly of one, and partly of the other; and many were put in different order. Sir Thomas Drury, a friend of Lord Orford's, put down four of the opposite side in his list. Lord Orford's friends hoped it would bring moderate persons over to ceedings, but by being privy, may stop any iniquitous proceedings. They have chosen Lord Limerick chairman. Lord Orford returns to-morrow from Houghton to Chelsea, from whence my uncle went in great fright to fetch him. I was yesterday presented to the Prince and Princess; but had not the honour of a word from either: he did vouchsafe to talk to Lord Walpole the day before. Yesterday the Lord Mayor brought in their favourite bill for repealing the Septennial Act, but we rejected it by 284 to 204." You shall have particular accounts of the Secret Committee and their proceedings; but it will be at least a month before they can make any progress. You did not say any thing about yourself in your last; never omit it, my dear child. TO SIR HORACE MANN. London, April 8, 1742. You have no notion how astonished I was, at reading your account of Sir Francis Dashwood!—that it should be possible for private and personal pique so to sour any man's temper and honour, and so utterly to change their principles! I own I am for your naming him in your next despatch: they may at least intercept his letters, and prevent his dirty intelligence. As to Lady Walpole, her schemes are so wild and so ill-founded, that I don't think it worth while to take notice of them. I possibly may mention this new one of them, if they put some on their list who were not partial to him."-" March 29. The decision between Sir H. Lyddel, Mr. J. Talbot. and Mr. W. Finch, was left to the Speaker, who chose the two former." Secker MS.-E. This is not correct. It appears, by the Journals, that the motion passed in the nega tive by 204 against 184. The debate is thus noticed by the Bishop of Oxford :-" March 31. Sir Robert Godschall, Lord Mayor, moved for the repeal of the Septennial Bill. Mr. Pultney said, he thought annual parliaments would be best, but preferred septennial to triennial and voted against the motion. In all, 204 against it, and 184 for it." Secker MS.-E. : b Margaret Rolle, a great Devonshire heiress, the wife of Robert, Lord Walpole, afterwards second Earl of Orford, the eldest son of the minister. She was separated from her husband, and had quarelled violently with his whole family. She resided principally at Florence, where she died in 1781; having married secondly, after the death of Lord Orford, the Hon. Sewallis Shirley. She was a woman of bad character, as well as half mad which last quality she communicated to her unfortunate son George, third Earl of Orford. She succeeded, in her own right, to the baronies of Clinton and Say, upon the death, in 1751, of Hugh, Earl and Baron Clinton.-D. (This lady was married to Lord Walpole in 1724. In a letter to the Countess of Mar, written in that year, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu says:-"I have so good an opinion of your taste, to believe harlequin in person will never make you laugh so much as the Earl of Stair's furious passion for Lady Walpole, aged fourteen and some months. Mrs. Murray undertook to bring the business to bear, and provided the opportunity, a great ingredient you'll say; but the young lady proved skittish. She did not only turn his heroic flame into present ridicule, but exposed all his generous sentiments, to divert her husband and father-inlaw." Works, vol. ii. p. 188.] |