SIR ROBERT WALPOLE,

FIRST EARL OF ORFORD,

Is only mentioned in this place in his quality of author. It is not proper nor necessary for me to touch his character here-sixteen unfortunate and inglorious years since his removal, have already written his eulogium !2

About the end of queen Anne's reign, and the beginning of George the first3, he wrote the following pamphlets:

[A strange reflection this! say the Monthly Reviewers. However we may pardon the partiality which shows itself in favour of so near a relation, and perhaps applaud the principle; yet we cannot excuse the writer who offers such an affront to the reader's understanding. Is it matter of eulogium to sir Robert's memory, that his successors acted as ill as himself, and that we have been unfortunate and inglorious since his removal? Were we not in the same lamentable condition during his administration? and was he not the patron of an open and avowed prostitution of all honour and principle? Month. Rev. vol. xix. p. 566]

[George the first did not understand English: George the second spoke the language pretty well. My father (said the late lord Orford) brushed up his old Latin in order to converse with the first Hanoverian sovereign; and ruled both kings, in spite of even their mistresses. Walpoliana, vol. i. p. 58. — Thinking to amuse my father (said his lordship at another time), after his retirement from the ministry, I offered to read a book of history:

1

"The Sovereign's Answer to a Glocestershire Address."

The sovereign meaned Charles, duke of Somerset, so called by the Whigs. Some paragraphs in this piece were inserted by the marquis of Wharton.

"Answer to the Representation of the House of Lords on the State of the Navy." 1709.

"The Debts of the Nation stated and considered, in four Papers."4 1710.

"The thirty-five Millions accounted for."5 1710.

"A Letter from a foreign Minister in England to Monsieur Pettecum."7 1710.

"Four Letters to a Friend in North Britain upon Sacheverel's Trial." 1710.

"Any thing but history," exclaimed sir Robert; "for history must be false." Ibid. p. 60.]

[These four papers are printed in the Somers Collection; but Mr. Coxe thinks the third and fourth have been ascribed to sir Robert Walpole without sufficient foundation.]

[This was entitled, "A State of the thirty-five Millions mentioned in a Report of the House of Commons."]

6 [Mr. Coxe says, he had reason to think this letter was not written by sir Robert Walpole, as it is a vindication of the Tories: but probably he might have written an answer. Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, vol. i. p. 752.]

7 See a full account of this person, who was a volunteer negotiator about the time of the treaty of Utrecht, in the Mémoires de Torcy.

Falsely attributed in the General Dictionary to Mr. Maynwaring, who did not write them, though he sometimes revised Mr. Walpole's pamphlets.

8

"A Pamphlet❞ upon the Vote of the House of Commons, with relation to the Allies not furnishing their Quotas."

"A short History of the Parliament.” 2 It is an account of the last session of the queen. It was undertaken by desire of lord Somers and the Whig lords, on a Thursday, and printed on the Tuesday following. The dedication was written by William Pulteney, earl of Bath.

"The South-Sea Scheme considered." 1720. "A Pamphlet against the Peerage Bill."

• I have seen a catalogue of books, in which the ludicrous notes on Speaker Bromley's Travels were ascribed, but falsely, to sir R. W.

9 Lord O. forgot the title; and I have not been able to recover it.

2 [A new edition of this pamphlet, from party motives, was given by Almon in 1763, under the title "A short History of that Parliament which committed Sir Robert Walpole to the Tower, expelled him the House of Commons, and approved of the infamous Peace of Utrecht." It was preceded by an advertisement which speaks of sir Robert Walpole as a minister who had faithfully served the crown five-and-twenty years. Coxe's Mem. ut sup. p. 751.]