p bought a considerable part of the collection duriug the minority of John lord Carteret, afterwards earl Granville, and more after his death. Some years after Kemp’s
Monumenta Vetustatis
Kempiana, &c.
” Irtiov, sive ex veteris monumenti Isiaci descriptione Isidis Delubrum reseratum,
” De
Clypeo Carnilli antique,
” Museum Woodwardianum,
” the latter
part of which was drawn up by Ainsworth, though Dr. Woodward himself had described most of the statues, tables, and
vases, and written large notes upon most of them. But the
work which has contributed most to Mr. Ainsworth’s name
is his well-known Latin Dictionary. About the year 1714,
it having been suggested to some principal booksellers,
that a new compendious English and Latin Dictionary, upon
a plan somewhat similar to Faber’s Thesaurus, was much
wanted, Mr. Ainsworth was considered as a proper person
to execute what proved to be a long and troublesome undertaking: and how well he completed it has been sufficiently shewn by the approbation bestowed on it by a succession of the ablest teachers and scholars. The first edition appeared in 1736, 4to, in which Dr. Patrick appears
to have assisted Ainsworth; and the second edition in 1746
was entirely entrusted to Patrick’s care, who introduced
many additions and improvements. Dr. Ward also contributed to this edition. The third edition irt 1751 was
superintended by Mr.Kimber, but with little or no variation.
In 1752 another appeared, greatly improved by Mr. William Young (the parson Adams of Fielding), and an editor
far superior to either of the preceding. An abridgment in
2 vols. 8vo, 1758, by Mr. Nathanael Thomas, is chiefly valuable for the clearness of the print, and the facility of reference. In 1773, Dr. Morell corrected, for the third
time, the quarto edition, and continued to improve it as
far as the edition of 1780; the last edition of 1808 was
revised by a gentleman, whose name we are not at liberty to
mention, amply qualified for the task. By a curious list
of the sums given to the various editors of this work, published by Mr. Nichols, we learn that Ainsworth received
for the first edition, 66 6l. 17s. 6d., and-for what he had
contributed to the second, his executors were paid 2501.
accept the post of chancellor of the exchequer, which he refused. This was in February 1745-6, when earl Granville was again appointed secretary of state but was obliged
It. is said, that sir John Barnard was once pressed, by king George the Second, to accept the post of chancellor of the exchequer, which he refused. This was in February 1745-6, when earl Granville was again appointed secretary of state but was obliged to resign the seals in a few days, on account of a powerful combination against him.
ce to leeward;” and by his writings the governor and council represented the matter so strikingly to earl Granville, president of the council 1756, that the measure was
Whilst in Jamaica, his residence was chiefly in Kingston, and it was he who first pointed out the absurdity of
continuing Spanish-town the port and capital, while reason plainly pointed out Kingston, or in his own words,
“the defects of a port of clearance to leeward;
” and by
his writings the governor and council represented the matter so strikingly to earl Granville, president of the council
1756, that the measure was immediately adopted, and
Kingston made the port of clearance, to the very great
benefit of commerce in general, as before that, when ships
were clearing out of Kingston, and ready to weigh
anchor, they were obliged to send near seven miles to Spanish-town, by which they often suffered great inconvenience and delay.
, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen
, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen of the last century, was born on the 22d of April, 1690. His father was George lord Carteret, baron Carteret, of Hawnes in the county of Bedford, having been so created on the 19th of October 1681, when he was only fifteen years of age and his mother was lady Grace, youngest daughter of John earl of Bath. He succeeded his father when only in his fifth year. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he was removed to Christ-church Oxford in both which places he made such extraordinary improvements, that he became one of the most learned young noblemen of his time; and he retained to the last his knowledge and love of literature. Dr. Swift humorously asserts, that he carried away from Oxford, with a singularity scarcely to be justified, more Greek, Latin, and philosophy, than properly became a person of his rank; indeed, much more of each, than most of those who are forced to live by their learning will be at the unnecessary pains to load their heads with. Being thus accomplished, lord Carteret was qualified to make an early figure in life. As soon as he was introduced into the house of peers, which was on the 25th of May, 1711, he distinguished himself by his ardent zeal for the protestant succession, which procured him the eariy notice of king George 1. by whom he was appointed, in 1714, one of the lords of the bed-chamber in 1715, bailiff of the island of Jersey and in 1716, lord lieutenant and custis rotulorum of the county of Devon which last office he held till August 1721, when he resigned it in favour of Hugh lord Clinton. His mother also, lady Grace, was created viscountess Carteret and countess Grai>ville, by letters patent, bearing date on the first of January, 1714-15, with limitation of these honours to her son John lord Carteret. His lordship, though still young, became, from the ea.ly part of king George the First’s reign, an eminent speaker in the house of peers. The first instance of the display of his eloquence, was in the famous debate on the bill for lengthening the duration of Parliaments, in which he supported the duke of Devonshire’s motion for the repeal of the triennial act. On the 18th of February, 17 t 7- 18, he spoke in behalf of the bill for punishing mutiny and desertion; and in the session of parliament which met on the llth of November following, he moved, for the address of thanks to the king, to congratulate his majesty on the seasonable success of his naval forces; and to assume him, that the house would support him in the pursuit of those prudent and necessary measures he had taken to secure the trade and quiet of his dominions, and the tranquillity of Europe. In Jan. 1718-19 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the queen of Sweden, with whom his first business was to, remove the difficulties which the British subjects had met with* Jo their commerce in the Baltic, and to procure satisfaction for the losses they had sustained; and in both he completely succeeded. On the 6th of November, 1719, lord Carteret first took upon him the character of ambassador extraordinary ana plenipotentiary; at which time, in a private audience, he offered his royal master’s mediation t<v make peace between Sweden and Denmark, and between Sweden and the Czar; both of which were readily accepted by the queen. A peace between Sweden, Prussia, and Hanover, having been concluded by lord Carteret, it was proclaimed at Stockholm on the 9th of March, 1719-L'O. This was the prelude to a reconciliation between Sweden and Denmark, which he also effected, and the treaty was signed July 3, 1720. In August his lordship was appointed, together with earl Stanhope and sir Robert Siutcm, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cambray but whether he acted in this capacity does not appear. From Denmark, however, he arrived in England Dec. 5, and a few weeks after took a share in the debates on the state of the national credit, occasioned by the unfortunate and iniquitous effects of the South-Sea scheme, maintaining that the estates of the criminals, whether directors or not directors, ought to be confiscated. Whilst this affair was in agitation, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of France, and was on the point of setting out, when the death of secretary Craggs induced his majesty to appoint lord Carteret his successor, May 4, 1721, and next day he was admitted into office, and sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. Whilst lord Carteret was secretary of state, he not only discharged the general duties of his employment to the satisfaction of his royal master, but ably defended in parliament the measures of administration. This he did in the debate concerning Mr. Law, the famous projector of the Mississippi scheme, whose arrival in England, in 1721, by the connivance, as it was thought, and even under the sanction of the ministry, excited no small degree of disgust; and he also took a part on the side of government, in th debate on the navy debt, and with regard to the various other motions and bills of the session. In the new parliament, which met on the llth of October, 1722, his lordship, on occasion of Layer’s plot, spoke in favour of suspending the habeas corpus act for one year; acquainted the house with the bishop of Rochester’s, lord NortU and Grey’s, and the earl of Orrery’s commitment to the Tower; and defended the motion for the imprisonment of the duke of Norfolk. In all the debates concerning this conspiracy, and particularly with regard to Atterbury, lord Carteret vindicated the proceedings of the tectart; as he did, likewise, in the case of the act for laying an extraordinary tax upon papists. On the 26th of May, 1723, when the king’s affairs called him abroad, his lordship was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom; but notwithstanding this, he went to Hanover, in conjunction with lord Townshend, the other secretary; and both these noblemen, in their return to England, had several conferences at the Hague, with the principal persons of the Dutch administration, on subjects of importance. In the session of parliament, January, 1723-4, lord Carteret, in the debate on the mutiny bill, supported the necessity of eighteen thousand men being kept up, as the number of land- forces, in opposition to lord Trevor, who had moved that the four thousand additional men, who had been raised the year before, should be discontinued., Not many days after this debate, several alterations took place at court. Lord Carteret quitted the office of secretary of state, in which he was succeeded by the duke of Newcastle; and on the same day, being the third of April, 1724, he was constituted lord -lieutenant of Ireland, and in October arrived at Dublin, where he was received with the usual solemnity. The Irish were at that time in a great ferment about the patent for Wood’s halfpence, which makes so signal a figure in the life and writings of Dr. Swift. One of the first things done by the lord-lieutenant was to publish a proclamation, offering a reward of three hundred pounds for a discovery of the author of the Drapier’s Letters. When he was asked, by Dr. Swift, howhe could concur in the prosecution of a poor honest fellow, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of writing three or four letters for the good of his country, his excellency replied, in the words of Virgil,
h of his mother, upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks after, resigned the seals as secretary
We now come to a part of lord Carteret’s life, including
nearly twelve years, from 1730 to 1742, during which he
engaged in the grand opposition, that was carried on so
long, and with so much pertinacity, against sir Robert
Walpole. In this opposition he took a very distinguished
part, and was one of its ablest and most spirited leaders.
There was scarcely any motion or question on which his
eloquence was not displayed. His powers of oratory are
allowed to have been eminently great; and it is highly
probable, that they were invigorated and increased by
that superior ardour which naturally accompanies an attack
upon the measures of government. In the session of parliament, 1730-1, he supported the bill against pensioners
being permitted to sit in that house; and the motion for
discharging the twelve thousand Hessian forces in the pay
of Great Britain. In the subsequent session, which opened
on the 13th of January, 1731-2, besides speaking in
favour of the pension bill, lord Carteret exerted his whole
ability against the passing of the act for reviving the salt
duty. This tax he asserted to be grievous, pernicious,
and insupportable; oppressive to the lower part of the
people; and dangerous to public liberty, by the numerous
dependents it would create upon the crown. In the next
year, the grand objects that engaged the attention of the
minority were, the motion for the reduction of the land
forces; the produce of the forfeited estates of the SouthSea directors in 1720; and the bill for granting eightythousand pounds for the princess-royal’s marriage settlement, and a sum out of the sinking fund; on which occasions lord Carteret displayed his usual energy and eloquence. In the session which began on the 17th of January, 1733-4, his lordship made the motion for an address
to the king, to know who had advised the removal of the
duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments;
and took the lead in the memorable debate which arose
upon that question, and an, active part in the other matters that were agitated in this and the following sessions.
It is observable that, about this time, Dr. Swift had some
doubts concerning lord Carteret’s steadiness in the cause
of opposition, yet, in the session>f parliament which
opened on the 1st of February, 1736-7, his lordship distinguished himself greatly in the several question-s concerning the riots at Edinburgh, and the affair of captain
Porteus; and he was the mover, in the house of peers,
for the settlement of an hundred thousand pounds a year,
out of the civil list, upon the prince of Wales; a matter
which excited a very long and violent debate. He exercised the same vigour with regard to all the motions and
questions of that busy session; and it is evident, from the
records of the times, that he was the prime leader of opposition in the upper house. This character was preserved
by lord Carteret in the parliament which met on the 15th
of November, 1739; and in the following session, when
the minority exerted their whole strength to overturn the
administration, he made the motion in the house of peers,
Feb. 13, 1740-1, to address his majesty, that he would
graciously be pleased to remove sir Robert Walpole from
his presence and councils for ever, and prefaced his proposal with the longest, as well as the ablest speech that, he
ever appears to have delivered. A year after, when
views of opposition were attained, so far as related to the
displacing of sir Robert Walpole, lord Carteret, Feb. 12>
1741-42, was appointed one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, and then began to change his parliamentary language, opposing the motion for the commitment of the pension -bill, and the bill to indemnify
evidences against Robert earl of Orford, not consistently,
although with some reason. In September 1742, he was
sent to the States General, to concert measures with them,
for the maintenance of the liberties of the United Provinces, and the benefit of the common cause and soon
after his return, he opposed the motion for discharging the
Hanoverian troops in British pay and distinguished himself in favour of the bill for retailing spirituous liquors. In
1743 he waited upon his majesty at Hanover, and attended
him through the whole interesting campaign of that year;
and the king placed the greatest confidence in his counsels,
to which he was the more entitled, as he was eminently
^killed in foreign affairs. On the death of his mother,
upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles
of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks
after, resigned the seals as secretary of state, unable to
oppose the patriotic party, whom he had suddenly forsaken, and the duke of Newcastle and his brother, Mr.
Pelham, who formed analliance with them against him.
George II. however, with reluctance parted with a minister who had gained his personal affection by his great
knowledge of the affairs of Europe, by his enterprizing
genius, and, above all, by his ready compliance with the
king’s favourite views. In the beginning of 1746, his
lordship made an effort to retrieve his influence in the cabinet, but the duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, who
knew his aspiring disposition, refused to admit him into
administration, yet mismanaged their intrigues so much,
that at first they were themselves obliged to resign, and
earl Granvilie was appointed secretary of state, and resumed the reins of administration, in February 1745-6:
finding, however, that he could not counteract the accumulated opposition that preponderated against him, he resigned the seals four days after they had' been put into his
hands. Still lord Granville’s political antagonists were not
able to prevent his receiving,. personal marks of royal favour. On the 22d of June, 1749J he was elected at Kensington, one of the knights companions of the most noble
order of the garter, and next year was again brought into
the ministry, in connection with the very men by whom
he had been so long and so warmly opposed. He was
then constituted president of the council, and notwithstanding the various revolutions of administration, was continued in this high post till his decease. When his majesty went to Hanover, in 17- r >2, earl Granville was appointed
one of the lords justices of the kingdom and he was in
the commissions for opening and concluding the session of
parliament, which began on the 31st of May, 1754, and
ended on the 5th of June following. The Ifist time in
which he spoke in the house of peers, was in opposition to
the third reading of the militia-bill, on the 24th of May,
1756, but not with his usual effect. When, in October
1761, Mr. Pitt proposed in council, an immediate declaration of war with Spain, and urged the measure with his
usual energy, threatening a resignation, if his advice should
not be adopted; lord Granville is said to have replied to
him in terms both pointed and personal. Mr. Wood, in
the preface to his “Essay on the original Genius and
Writings of Homer,
” informs us, that “being directed to
wait upon his lordship, a few days before he died, with
the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, he found
him so languid, that he proposed postponing his business
for another time; but earl Granville insisted that he should
stay, saying, it could not prolong his life to neglect his
duty; and repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech
in Homer, he dwelled with particular emphasis on one of
the lines which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part
he had taken in public affairs.
” After a pause he desired
to hear the treaty read and gave it the approbation of a
“dying statesman (his own words) on the most glorious
war, and most honourable peace, this nation ever saw.
”
In other respects, lord Granville so much retained his vivacity to the close of his life, as to be able to break out
into sallies of wit and humour. He died Jan. 2, 1763, in.
the seventy-third year of his age. He was twice married;
first at Long-Leat, on the 17th of October, 1710, to
Frances, only daughter of sir Robert Worsley, bart.; and
secondly, on the 14th of April, 1744, to lady Sophia,
daughter of Thomas earl of Pomfret. By his former wife
he had three sons and five daughters; by the latter, only
one daughter.
Lord Granville’s character has been drawn as follows,
by the late earl of Chesterfield: “Lord Granville had
great parts, and a most uncommon share of learning for a
man of quality. He was one of the best speakers in the
house of lords, both in the declamatory and the argumentative way. He had a wonderful quickness and precision
in seizing the stress of a question, which no art, no sophistry, could disguise in him. In business he was bold,
enterprizing, and overbearing. He had been bred up in
high monarchical, that is, tyrannical principles of government, which his ardent and impetuous temper made him
think were the only rational and practicable ones. He
would have been a great first minister in France, little inferior, perhaps, to Richelieu; in this government, which is
yet free, he would have been a dangerous one, little less
so, perhaps, than lord Strafford. He was neither ill-natured nor vindictive, and had a great contempt for money.
His ideas were all above it. In social life he was an agreeable, good-humoured, and instructive companion; a great
but entertaining talker. He degraded himself by the vice
of drinking, which, together with a great stock of Greek
and Latin, he brought away with him from Oxford, and
retained and practised ever afterwards. By his own industry, he had made himself master of all the modern languages, and had acquired a great knowledge of the law.
His political knowledge of the interest of princes and of
commerce was extensive, and his notions were just and
great. His character may be summed up, in nice precision, quick decision, and unbounded presumption.
”
Earl Granville, amidst all his struggles for place and power, had
Earl Granville, amidst all his struggles for place and
power, had an affectation of saying, “I love my fire-side; 11
which humour was vrell exposed, by Mr. Hawkins Browne,
in a copy of verses, entitled
” The Fire-side, a pastoral
soliloquy.“Lord Carteret’s letter on the battle at Dettingen was much ridiculed at the time, and the only excuse
for it was his lordship’s intoxication not merely with joy,
In giving his judgment concerning men of high office in
the state, earl Grauville sometimes spoke too incautiously
for a politician. Having been asked who wrote the king’s
speech in a certain year, he said,
” Do you not see the
blunt pen of the old attorney?“meaning lord Hardwicke.
It was not always in his power to conceal the pangs of disappointed ambition. He made a present of a copy of the
Polyglot Bible, which the owner got bound in an elegant
manner. When lord Granville saw the book in its newdress, he said,
” You have done with it as the king has done
with me he made me fine, and he laid me by. "
In lord Egmont’s manuscripts are some curious traits of earl Granville' s character. He was one of those politicians who
In lord Egmont’s manuscripts are some curious traits of earl Granville' s character. He was one of those politicians who make religion subservient to the state. The considering the kingdom of Christ as a separate kingdom from those of this world he counted absurd. On the contrary, be maintained that Christianity is incorporated with civil government as sand with lime, each of which by itself makes no mortar. Where he imagined that the public interest might receive prejudice by Christianity, he was against its being taught. He hoped, therefore, never to see our negroes in America become Christians, because he believed that this would render them less laborious slaves. On the same principle, he was against any attempts to convert the American savages. In learning Christianity, they would fall into the use of letters, and a skill in the arts being the consequence, they would become more formidable to the plantations. Pursuing a similar train of reasoning, lord Granville wished to God that the pope might never turn protestant, or the Italians cease to be papists, for then we should sell them no fish. He was glad % N that the clergy sent abroad to our plantations were immoral and ignorant wretches, because they could have no influence over the inhabitants, as better and wiser men would have, and who would use that influence for the purpose of inspiring the planters with a spirit of iadependence on their mother country. He was hostile to the scheme of sending bishops to America. These, he thought, would labour to bring the several sects to one religion; whereas the security of that people’s dependence on England he conceived to arise from their mutual divisions. He was an enemy likewise to the improvement of our colonies in learning. This he said would take off their youth from wholly attending to trade, fill them with speculative notions of government and liberty, and prevent the education of the sons of rich planters in England, where they contract a love to this kingdom, and when grown old, come back and settle, to the great increase of our wealth. Even" at home he was against charity-schools, and was not for having the vulgar taught to read, that they might think of nothing but the plow, and their other low avocations. However unsound some of these opinions may appear, most readers may recollect that they did not die with his lordship.
il; and the circumstance of his distress being known, as well as his being a man of some parts, John earl Granville, the then president, nobly rescued him from the like
, was the son of colonel Cleland, that
celebrated fictitious member of the Spectator’s Club whom
Steele describes under the name of Will Honeycombe.
He was educated at Westminster- school, to which he was
admitted in 1722, and was there the contemporary of lord
Mansfield, He was early in life sent as consul to Smyrna,
where perhaps he first imbibed those loose principles which
in the infamous work he afterwards wrote, are so dangerously
exemplified. On his return from Smyrna, he went to the
East Indies; but, quarrelling with some of the members of
the presidency of Bombay, he made a precipitate retreat
from the east, with little or no benefit to his fortune. Being without profession, or any settled means of subsistence,
he soon fell into difficulties; a prison and its miseries were
the consequences. In this situation, about the year 1750,
one of those booksellers who disgrace the profession, offered him a temporary relief for writing a work most grossly
immoral, and fit only for the brothels, which brought a
stigma on his name that time has not obliterated. The
sum given for the copy was 20 guineas; the sum received
for the sale could not be less than 10,000l. For this publication he was called before the privy council; and the
circumstance of his distress being known, as well as his being
a man of some parts, John earl Granville, the then president, nobly rescued him from the like temptation, by getting him a pension of 100l. a. year, which he enjoyed to his
death, and which had so much the desired effect, that except the “Memoirs of a Coxcomb,
” which has some smack
of dissipated manners, and the “Man of Honour,
” written
as an amende honorable for his former exceptionable book,
he dedicated the rest of his life to political, dramatic, and
philological studies. In 1765 he published “The Way to
Things by Words, and to Words by Things,
” 8vo, which
wast followed in Specimens of an Etymological
Vocabulary, or Essay by means of the Analytic method to
retrieve the ancient Celtic,
” and Proposals for publishing
by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Celtic retrieved by
the Analytic method, or reduction to Radicals; illustrated
by various and especially British antiquities;
” but he does
not appear to have received encouragement sufficient to
enable him to print this work. In these publications, however, he has displayed a fund of ingenuity and erudition,
not unworthy the education he received at Westminster.
His political effusions appeared chiefly in the Public Advertiser, under the signatures A Briton, Modestus, &c. but
were tedious and dull. His dramatic trifles and occasional
poems were more lively, although they had not strength to
survive their day. He Jived within the income of his pension, with some addition from his newspaper labours, in a
retired situation in Petty France, where he died Jan. 23,
1789, in his eightieth year, having survived his infamous
publication long enough to see, we trust with shame and
sorrow, the extensive misery it created, and which it never
was in his power to check.
hter and coheir of Henry D'Auverquerque earl of Grantham; and in 1750, to lady Georgina, daughter to earl Granville, and widow of the hon. John Spencer, esq. by whom
William, the second earl Cowper, was twice married; in 1732, to lady Henrietta, youngest daughter and coheir of Henry D'Auverquerque earl of Grantham; and in 1750, to lady Georgina, daughter to earl Granville, and widow of the hon. John Spencer, esq. by whom she was mother of John earl Spencer. By lady Georgina, lord Cowper had no issue; but by his first countess, who died in 1747, he was father of George Nassau, third earl Cowper, who died at Florence in 1789, and was succeeded by his son George Augustus, who also dying in 1799, was* succeeded by Leopold Louis Francis, his brother, the present and fifth earl Cowper.
he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one
, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of
that title, was the second and youngest son of the second
marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen
first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was
chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on
a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met
Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of
his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17,
1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament,
summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by
the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for
a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the
restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration
of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and
sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council.
On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament.
In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in
the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke
of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour,
unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was
of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house
of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide
the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous
a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer
and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons
who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time
divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public
rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger
brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at
Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both
commenced their parliamentary career at the same period,
and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior
talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted.
Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was
profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering
his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself
from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a
seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir
Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general
of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady
Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond,
though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally
strengthened his political connections. He was equally a
man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial
intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition.
No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from
political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners,
and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully
merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is
justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having
no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.
” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed;
but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from
his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded
with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of
diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound
argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and
skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote
without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were
manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and
animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded
money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and
one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in
abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to
have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756
he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and
in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces,
which he retained until the commencement of the present
reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some
degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly
overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money
in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city
of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.
” On
May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and
on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the
title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the
county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused
himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at
Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord
of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland,
granted him for his own life and that of his two sons.
Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington,
July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving
three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the
subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general
in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his
father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was
succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.
period, the duties of my situation engaged me in an occasional attendance upon a nobleman (the late earl Granville), who, though he presided at his majesty’s councils,
Mr. Wood had drawn up a great part of his “Essay on
Homer
” in the life-time of Mr. Dawkins, who wished it to
be made public. “But,
” says Mr. Wood, “while I was
preparing it for the press, I had the honour of being called
to a station, which for some years fixed my whole attention upon objects of so very different a nature, that it hecame necessary to lay Homer aside, and to reserve the farther consideration of my subject for a time of more leisure. However, in the course of that active period, the
duties of my situation engaged me in an occasional attendance upon a nobleman (the late earl Granville), who,
though he presided at his majesty’s councils, reserved
some moments for literary amusement. His lordship was
so partial to this subject, that I seldom had the honour of
receiving his commands on business, that he did not lead
the conversation to Greece and Homer. Being directed to
wait upon his lordship a few days before he died, with the
preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, I found him so
languid, that I proposed postponing my business for another
time^ but he insisted that I should stay, saying,
” it could
not prolong his life, to neglect his duty:“and, repeating a
passage out of Sarpedon’s speech, dwelt with particular
emphasis on a line which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs. His lordship
then repeated the last word several times with a calm and
determined resignation; and, after a serious pause of some
minutes, he desired to hear the treaty read; to which he
listened with great attention; and recovered spirits enough
to declare the approbation of a dying statesman (1 use his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable
peace, this country ever saw.
”
Mr. Wood also left behind him several Mss. relating to
his travels, but not sufficiently arranged to afford any
hopes of their being given to the public. The house in
which he lived in Putney is situated between the roads
which lead to Wandswprth and Wimbledon, and became
the residence of his widow. Mr. Wood purchased it of
the executors of Edward Gibbon, esq. whose son, the celebrated historian, was born there. The farm and pleasuregrounds which adjoin the house are very spacious, containing near fourscore acres, and surrounded by a gravel-walk,
which commands a beautiful prospect of London and the
adjacent country. Mr. Wood was buried in the cemetery
near the upper road to Richmond. On his monument
is the following inscription, drawn up by the hon. Horace
Walpole, earl of Orford, at the request of his widow: