EARL CAMDEN.

(1713-1794.)

A Forty Days' Tyranny.-On the occasion of an Order in Council being promulgated to prohibit the exportation of corn (December, 1766), Lord Camden defended the proceeding in these terms: "The necessity of a measure renders it not only excusable, but legal; and consequently a judge, when the necessity is proved, may, without hesitation, declare that act legal which would be clearly illegal where such necessity did not exist. The Crown is the sole executive power, and is therefore intrusted by the Constitution to take upon itself whatever the safety of the State may require during the recess of Parliament, which is at most but a forty days' tyranny." The power exercised on this occasion was so moderate that Junius Brutus would not have hesitated to entrust it even to the discretion of a Nero.-Lord Charlemont's Correspondence.

Creation of Peers.-Lord Campbell mentions that in the course of the debate on the appointment of the Prince of Wales as Regent (January 22nd, 1789), Lord Camden got into a scrape, in obviating the objection to the suspension of the power of making peers, by saying that "on any urgent call for a peerage it might be conferred by Act of Parliament proceeding which appeared to their lordships so unconstitutional and republican that he was obliged to explain and retract.

-a

"Unwhig."-Lord Camden, writing to the Duke of Grafton (August 1st, 1782) respecting his intention of resigning the Privy Seal, said: "Considering the perilous condition of the public at this conjuncture, I should be much concerned if your grace was to take a hasty resolution of retiring just now, because your retreat would certainly be followed by other resignations, and would totally unwhig' the Administration, if I may use the expression." The only other occasion (says Campbell) I recollect of this word being used was when Mr. Fox, on the King's illness, having contended that the heir-apparent was entitled as of right to be Regent, Mr. Pitt said, "For this doctrine I will unwhig him for the rest of his days."

A Friend of Freedom.-When the Libel Act was under discussion in the House of Lords (relates Brougham), in 1792, Chancellor Thurlow, as the last effort to retain the law in judicial hands, asked if Lord Camden would object to a clause being inserted granting a new trial, in case the court were dissatisfied with a verdict for the defendant. "What!" exclaimed the veteran friend of freedom; "after a verdict of acquittal? "Yes," said Lord Thurlow. "No, I thank you," was the memorable reply, and the last words spoken in public by this great man. The bill immediately was passed.

LORD THURLOW.

(1732-1806.)

Leaving the Lawyer Behind.-Thurlow, as Attorney-General, took an active part, on the Government side, in the debates which preluded the outbreak of the American colonists. It is amusing (remarks

Campbell) to find him declaring that he did not speak on such occasions as a lawyer; "that he always did, and always would, leave the lawyer in Westminster Hall, and be in that House only a member of Parliament."

Thurlow Abashed.-Mr. Fox having moved, in 1777, for the production of certain papers relating to the American war, Thurlow, then Attorney-General, opposed the motion on behalf of the Government. The "Parliamentary History says: "He was contending against the ill policy of giving such information at the present critical moment, when news came from the Lords that the ministers in the upper house had agreed to the same motion. This intelligence produced a great deal of laughter amongst the minority, and the whisper, reaching the AttorneyGeneral, threw him into a little confusion; but, having recovered from it, he quitted the defence of the Administration, and said that, ‘let ministers do as they please in this or in any other House, he, as a member of Parliament, never would give his vote for making public the circumstances of a negotiation during its progress.' However, this did not stifle the laugh, which continued for some time." Lord Campbell ascribes the laughter to "the phenomenon that, for once in his life, Thurlow appeared to be abashed."

The Great Seal Stolen.-Early in the morning of the 24th of March, 1784 (says Campbell), "some thieves broke into the house of Lord Thurlow, in Great Ormond Street, which then bordered on the country. They carried off the great seal, two silver-hilted swords belonging to the Chancellor's officers, and a small sum of money. Though a reward was offered for their discovery, the thieves never could be traced. A charge was brought against the Whigs that, to prevent the then threatened dissolution, they had burglariously broken into the Lord Chancellor's house, and feloniously stolen and carried off the Clavis Regni." The theft and the custodian of the seal are thus alluded to in "The Rolliad ":

"The rugged Thurlow, who, with sullen scowl,
In surly mood, at friend and foe will growl,

Of proud prerogative the stern support,

Defends the entrance of Great George's court

'Gainst factious Whigs, lest they who stole the seal

The sacred diadem itself should steal.

So have I seen, near village butcher's stall

(If things so great may be compared with small),

A mastiff guarding on a market day,

With snarling vigilance, his master's tray."

Thurlow's Gush of Loyalty.-The question of the Regency, on the illness of George III. in 1788, gave rise to vehement debates and much political intrigue. Lord Chancellor Thurlow's conduct in the matter is well known; he negotiated with the Whigs for the Regency, while he still occupied the woolsack for the Tories, who opposed it. On the 10th of December, 1788, Pitt presented a report to the House of Commons on the King's mental incapacity, and moved for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents. A similar motion was made the following day in the Lords. Thurlow, who by this time had

come to the conclusion that his interest lay on the King's side, left the woolsack and addressed the House, concluding his speech with this exclamation—“ And when I forget my King may my God forget me!" It seems scarcely possible (says Earl Stanhope, in his "Life of Pitt") to exaggerate the strong impression which that half-sentence made. Within the house itself the effect perhaps was not so satisfactory. Wilkes, who was standing under the throne, eyed the Chancellor askance, and muttered, "God forget you! He will see you d-first!" Burke at the same moment exclaimed, with equal wit and with no profaneness, “The best thing that can happen to you! Pitt also was on the steps of the throne. On Lord Thurlow's imprecation he is said to have rushed out of the house, exclaiming several times, "Oh, what a rascal!" In allusion to this scene, Burke afterwards remarked in the House of Commons: "The other House were not yet, perhaps, recovered from that extraordinary burst of the pathetic which had been exhibited the other evening; they had not yet dried their eyes, or been restored to their former placidity, and were unqualified to attend to new business. The tears shed in that House, on the occasion to which he alluded, were not the tears of patriots for dying laws, but of lords for their expiring places. The iron tears which flowed down Pluto's cheek rather resembled the dismal bubbling of the Styx than the gentle murmuring streams of Aganippe."

Betrayed by his Hat.-Lord Campbell relates that when a council was to be held at Windsor, to determine the course which ministers should pursue on the Regency question, Thurlow had been there some time before any of his colleagues arrived. He was to be brought back to London by one of them, and, the moment of departure being come, the Chancellor's hat was nowhere to be found. After a fruitless search in the apartment where the council had been held, a page came with the hat in his hand, saying aloud, and with great naïveté, “ My lord, I found it in the closet of his royal highness the Prince of Wales." The other ministers were still in the hall, and Thurlow's confusion corroborated the inference which they drew.

A Scarecrow to the Houses.-With reference to precedents cited of the Chancellor having directed the use of the greal seal during the King's incapacity, Burke remarked, "But what is to be done when the Crown is in a deliquium? It was intended, he had heard, to set up a man (Thurlow) with black brows and a large wig, a kind of scarecrow to the two Houses, who was to give a factitious assent in the royal name, and this to be binding on the people at large."

An Imposing Aspect.-Although pretending (says Campbell) to despise the opinion of others, he was acting a part, and his aspect was more solemn and imposing than almost any other person's in public life— so much so that Mr. Fox used to say "it proved him dishonest, since no man could be so wise as Thurlow looked."

A Masked Battery.-Speaking generally, it was only on great occasions that he signalised himself. He was a kind of guarda costa vessel, which cannot meet every turn and winding of a frigate that assails her, but, when the opportunity offers, pours a broadside which seldom fails

of sinking the assailant. His lordship, however, possessed a weapon which he often brought into action with great skill and effect. He would appear to be ignorant upon the subject in debate, and with affected respect, but visible derision, to seek for information upon it, pointing out, with a kind of dry solemn humour, contradictions and absurdities, which he professed his own inability to explain, and calling upon his adversaries for their explanation. It was a kind of masked battery of the most searching questions and distressing observations; it often discomfited his adversary, and seldom failed to force him into a very embarrassing position of defence; it was the more effective as, when he was playing it off, his lordship showed he had the command of much more formidable artillery.-Butler's "Reminiscences."

A Crushing Reply. At times (says Butler) Lord Thurlow was superlatively great. It was my good fortune to hear his celebrated reply to the Duke of Grafton during the inquiry into Lord Sandwich's administration of Greenwich Hospital. His grace's action and delivery when he addressed the House were singularly dignified and graceful; but his matter was not equal to his manner. He reproached Lord Thurlow with his plebeian extraction, and his recent admission into the peerage. Particular circumstances caused Lord Thurlow's reply to make a deep impression on me. His lordship had spoken too often, and began to be heard with a civil, but visible, impatience. Under these circumstances, he was attacked in the manner we have mentioned. He rose from the woolsack, and advanced slowly to the place whence the Chancellor generally addresses the House; then, fixing on the duke the look of Jove when he grasps the thunder, "I am amazed," he said in a level tone of voice, "at the attack the noble duke has made on me. Yes, my lords"-considerably raising his voice"I am amazed at his grace's speech. The noble duke cannot look before him, behind him, and on either side of him, without seeing some noble peer who owes his seat in this House to his successful exertions in the profession to which I belong. Does he not feel that it is as honourable to owe it to these as to being the accident of an accident? To all these noble lords the language of the noble duke is as applicable and as insulting as it is to myself. But I don't fear to meet it single and alone. No one venerates the peerage more than I do; but I must say, my lords, that the peerage solicited me, not I the peerage. Nay, more; I can say, and will say, that as a peer of Parliament, as Speaker of this right honourable House, as Keeper of the Great Seal, as guardian of his Majesty's conscience, as Lord High Chancellor of England-nay, even in that character alone in which the noble duke would think it an affront to be considered -as A MAN-I am at this moment as respectable-I beg leave to add I am at this time as much respected-as the proudest peer I now look down upon." The effect of this speech, both within the walls of Parliament and out of them, was prodigious. It gave Lord Thurlow an ascendancy in the House which no Chancellor had ever possessed; it invested him, in public opinion, with a character of independence and honour; and this, though he was ever on the unpopular side in politics, made him always popular with the people.

THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.

(1737-1805.)

The Shelburne Ministry.-When Lord North resigned in March, 1782, the King offered Lord Shelburne to place him at the head of the Treasury, but he declined undertaking the formation of a ministry, in deference to the Marquis of Rockingham. "My lord," said Shelburne to the latter, "you could stand without me, but I could not without you." A Cabinet was therefore formed by the marquis, in which Shelburne and Fox became Secretaries of State, and Burke Paymaster. Lord Rockingham dying in the following July, Lord Shelburne took the Premiership, and, the Fox party resigning, he adorned his new Board (as Walpole remarks) with "the most useful acquisition, and by the most artful address, of his whole administration-by offering the seals of Chancellor of the Exchequer to young William Pitt, who readily accepted them, and the more difficult task of enlisting himself as the rival of Charles Fox, who had wished to have him his friend."

Flattery Missing its Mark.-Horace Walpole reports that Lord Shelburne, on coming into office, told Chancellor Thurlow, as a new discovery he had just made, that he was amazed at the genius he found in the King. The Chancellor laughed in his face, and instead of reporting the encomium to the King, as Shelburne expected, told it to everybody else with contempt.

Provoking.-Lord Shelburne (remarked S. Rogers) could say tho most provoking things, and yet appear quite unconscious of their being so. In one of his speeches, alluding to Lord Carlisle, he said, "The noble lord has written a comedy." "No, a tragedy." "Oh, I beg pardon; I thought it was a comedy."

Duel between Lord Shelburne and Colonel Fullarton.Colonel Fullarton, member for Plympton, complained to the House, on the 20th March, 1780, of the "ungentleman-like behaviour of the Earl of Shelburne, who had in effect dared to say that he and his regiment were as ready to act against the liberties of England as against her enemies." A hostile meeting was the result, two days after. "Colonel Fullarton," says the Annual Register, "desired Lord Shelburne to fire, which his lordship declined, and Colonel Fullarton was ordered by the seconds to fire. He fired and missed. Lord Shelburne returned it and missed. Mr. Fullarton then fired his second pistol, and hit Lord Shelburne in the right groin." The seconds interposed, but his lordship refused to deliver up his other pistol, which was still loaded. The colonel returned to his position, and repeatedly desired his lordship to fire at him; but Lord Shelburne replied, Sure, sir, you don't think I would fire my pistol at you," and fired it in the air. Colonel Fullarton then said, " As your lordship is wounded, and has fired in the air, it is impossible for me to go on." Hereupon the seconds declared that their principals had both behaved as men of the strictest honour. The Court of Common Council, having heard of the affair, sent officially to inquire "after his lordship's safety, endangered in consequence of his upright and spirited conduct in Parliament."

66