The Duke of Cumberland, on these harsh proceedings, said to Lord Waldegrave, “Fox has deceived me grossly—not, as you think, by giving me up; he might be as angry with me for talking to Newcastle and Pitt—but he has deceived me, for I thought him good-natured; but in all these transactions he has shown the bitterest revenge and inhumanity.”
When the Houses met after Christmas, the Court was so thoroughly the master, that scarce an attempt was made at opposition. Yet Wilkes and Churchill wrote with as much intemperance as if the nation had been overspread with the flame of faction. The latter now published his “Prophecy of Famine,” one of the severest and least irregular of his works. Their poems and libels seemed to have little effect, but the seeds sown by them took deep root. Nor did the Court trouble itself to deny what was charged on it. The measures of the House of Stuart were so thoroughly copied, that even the rankest friends of that family were adopted at St. James’s. Sir John Philipps himself was made a privy councillor.
It happened that Lord Strange,292 moving a common adjournment to the following Monday, the Speaker said the House must adjourn till Tuesday, for Monday would be the 30th of January. Lord Strange laughed at such a Saint’s day, and divided the House, but found only thirty-six persons of his opinion; one hundred and three were for observing the ridiculous fast. Fox was of the majority, who, very few years before, had been for putting an end to that Jacobite holiday—a clear indication of the principles of the new Court. Lord Strange causing that part of the act of Parliament, which ordains observance of the day, to be read, and affirming that the words Neither Parliament nor People can judge the King, were contrary to the constitution; Fox denied it, and maintained that the constitution had always held that language. Rose Fuller and Lord Strange moved another day, to abolish the observation of the pretended martyrdom, but it was overruled by the House: however, it produced a very bold and extraordinary speech from Calvert; he drew a picture of a fictitious family in Surrey, whom he called the Steadys, describing two old Steadys and a young one; with a very particular account of young Steady’s mother, and of her improper intimacy with a Scotch gardener—he hoped the true friends of young Steady would advise him to recall his old friends, and turn away the Scotch gardener. No reply was made, for none could be made, without carrying the application too home.
Most of the other transactions of this session were as trifling, and deserve but little notice. Sir John Philipps, to preserve a semblance of patriotism, or instigated by Bute to intimidate Newcastle, moved for the accounts of the nation. Fox, who did not like any clue that might lead to the mysteries of the Pay-Office, opposed it; and Lord Granby, though sold to the Court, warmly defended the Duke of Newcastle’s integrity. Legge objected, too, and said he saw no end such a motion tended to; it was like asking a country fellow the way—he always asks you whence you came! Aislabie293 reflected on Fox for not passing his accounts, and the attack was received with loud marks of approbation; but when neither the late nor actual ministers encouraged the inquiry, it was not likely to be very successful. Sir John Philipps accordingly desisted, and Sir Francis Dashwood proposed to name a select committee to examine any accounts that had been brought in, which was agreed to; and lists were given out, from whence an equal number being chosen of the Court’s and of Newcastle’s friends, no more came of this, than of twenty such intended inquiries. Nor was anything memorable in the outset, but that the Tories, meeting in a body to consider the proposed lists, erased the names of Fox’s four chief friends; still, so blind were those dull men to their real interest, and still so much addicted to be led by mere names, they even objected to the large army proposed to be maintained; proof that they had not one sensible man of their body. What should a large army achieve but the work of monarchy? Or say the Tories were honest men and lovers of liberty? Could they love liberty and slavery both? or did they call themselves by a disgraceful name when they deserved to wear an honourable one? In truth, all the sensible Tories I ever knew were either Jacobites or became Whigs; those that remained Tories remained fools.
A scheme more laudable, more necessary, and founded on a crying evil, met with no fairer success than the committee of accounts. I mean the committee to inspect and redress the grievous abuses of madhouses.294 Charles Townshend took great pains in that business, distinguished himself, was content and dropped it. The lawyers raised many objections, and removed none. Poor humanity! how ill art thou treated by the human race! We fire at the relation of calamities, denounce vengeance on the perpetrators, cry out for, set about, reformation, and in England, give us our due, lavish our money towards it; then grow cool, and never think of the woe afterwards. Lawyers never suffer correction of abuses; they defend them even where they do not commit them.
When the accounts of the navy were brought into the House, it appeared that one hundred and eighty-four thousand seamen had been raised during the war. Of these, one hundred and thirty thousand had been lost to the nation; and yet, scarce will it be believed, sixteen hundred only had been killed!295 Many had deserted, and had enlisted again; others went into other services. Most of the rest died of distempers, climates, hardships, &c. But with the loss of sixteen hundred men, we had destroyed the navies of France and Spain. Glorious consideration! could it be unmixed with the remembrance of the other hundred and twenty-eight thousand! But Glory must shed more tears of anguish than of joy, whenever she turns accomptant. What if returns were made of all the other lives lost in that war all over the face of the globe! What did the peasants in Germany suffer? even heroism had its pangs. Did not the King of Prussia see every general with whom he commenced that short war perish before his eyes? I said he felt a pang—I hope he did. It is an observation a little foreign to the reflection with which I set out, but extensively victorious as that war was to Britain, she did not see one famous native general arise out of that war, except Wolfe, who died in the cradle of his celebrity; and unless we name Lord Clive, who was more a statesman than general, and in both respects not matched against equal rivals. I do not mean to detract from his merits; he was born to shine in the Indies: at home he never stepped beyond the common of mankind.
Charles Townshend, who had but just resigned, and who had no sooner resigned than he opposed the opposition, perceiving the weakness of that opposition, that Pitt would not lead it, and afraid to lead it himself, struck in again with the tide, and at the end of February kissed hands for first Lord of Trade, with a nominal rank of Cabinet Councillor, but without being permitted to go in to the King with state papers, except with those relating to the Board of Trade. He had boasted of far greater offers. Lord Sandys was removed to make room for him. A promiscuous meeting being held at Sir Francis Dashwood’s, to consider what proportion of army should be kept up, Ellis, Secretary at War, proposed eighteen thousand men for England, ten for America, and the usual twelve