of the Board of Works.
51 George Cooke, prothonotary of the Common Pleas, and member for Middlesex. Walpole calls him elsewhere a “pompous Jacobite.” He conducted the celebrated Westminster Petition against Lord Trentham in 1751; afterwards attaching himself to Mr. Pitt, he was appointed joint Paymaster-General in 1766, and died in 1768.—E.
52 Thomas Coventry, member for Bridport. A barrister, and director of the South Sea Company. He was son of Thomas Coventry, who was brother of William fifth Earl of Coventry.—E.
53 Alderman William Beckford, of Jamaica, member for the City of London.
54 Henry Bilson Legge, a younger son of the first Earl of Dartmouth, was at this time Chancellor of the Exchequer. It should be remembered that Mr. Legge had abandoned Lord Winchelsea, and attached himself to Mr. Pelham in the Cabinet schism of 1744. He shared, with many respectable statesmen of that day, the charge of having served several masters, the partial changes so frequently made in the Government having rendered coalitions almost inevitable, especially at a time when, owing to the decline of Jacobitism, the lines of demarcation between the different political parties had become very indistinct. None, however, with whom he acted, could deny his eminent qualifications as a man of business, or as a debater in the House of Commons on all questions of trade and finance. His political integrity is less commendable. Dodington says, that his thoughts were “tout pour la trippe”—all for quarter-day (Diary, 407); and has, in common with Walpole, reproached him with perfidy, in disclosing to the Duke of Newcastle the negotiations of Leicester House with the Court in 1757. The more detailed account of the transaction, since published in the posthumous memoirs of Mr. Glover, makes it far more probable that the secret was insidiously drawn from him by the Duke, whose skill in imposing on men of superior ability to his own, is one of the most remarkable traits of his character; and that Mr. Legge was very open to such arts, may reasonably be inferred, from the well-known fact of his having incurred the serious displeasure of George the Second by an indiscreet slip in conversation, when minister at Berlin. He had the laxity of principle that belonged to the school of Walpole, but there is no ground for believing him to have been actually dishonest; and Mr. Pelham, who knew him well, said, “that he thought him as good as his neighbours: more able, and as willing, to serve them that served him as anybody he had been acquainted with for some time.” Whatever may have been his delinquencies in this respect, they would certainly have been overlooked by the Court, had he added to them by adopting the course which was urged on him by Lord Bute in the Hampshire election. This is proved by their published correspondence, in which he had a great advantage over Lord Bute. When that minister had the assurance to ask him to support Sir Simeon Steuart, who had come forward on the opposite interest, he honestly answered, “If the Whigs and Dissenters, who are very numerous in this country, will make it a point of opposing him, it will be impossible for me to declare for him, and abandon those who have supported me, to take part with those against whom they have supported me.” Lord Bute’s rejoinder is admirable! he protests against any desire on the Prince’s part to require the sacrifice of Mr. Legge’s honour, but besought him out of real friendship, to consider seriously whether he could not still, as far as was in his power, co-operate with the Prince’s wishes for the return of two candidates, and required a categorical answer. This was at once given in the negative by Mr. Legge, who added, that he would submit to any consequences rather than incur such a disgrace. Hence his dismissal. See more of Mr. Legge infra.—E.
55 Daniel Finch, Earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham, Knight of the Garter. Lord Winchelsea is one of the few statesmen of the reign of George the Second whose character is worthy of a purer age. He was the son of Lord Winchelsea, the great Tory leader, whose disgrace he shared when that nobleman was dismissed for espousing the cause of the Jacobite peers involved in the rebellion of 1715. He subsequently became reconciled to Sir Robert Walpole, and in 1742 was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Lord Waldegrave says of his conduct at that period, “That it was so unexceptionable that faction itself was obliged to be silent.”—Walpole Memoirs, p. 139. Horace Walpole is equally warm in his praise. This is the testimony of political friends, but it stands uncontradicted. Indeed Lord Winchelsea appears to have enjoyed the respect of all parties. His public career, to use the words of Lord Mahon, “without being illustrious, was long, useful, and honourable.” He died in 1769, aged 81.—E.
56 William Wildman Shute Barrington, Viscount Barrington, Treasurer of the Navy.
57 Robert Darcy, Earl of Holderness. This is an exaggeration of Lord Holderness’s incapacity; for it appears by the Mitchell papers, that he had attended closely to the business of his office, and performed it respectably. His talents, however, were not above mediocrity. His foreign connexions had recommended him to George the Second, whom he attended as Lord of the Bedchamber at the battle of Dettingen, and he was afterwards minister at Turin and at the Hague. The Duke of Newcastle succeeded in making him Secretary of State, against the opinion of Mr. Pelham, when scarcely thirty years of age. His qualifications for that high office are thus summed up by the Duke, in a letter, urging the appointment:—“He is indeed, or was thought, trifling in his manner and carriage; but believe me, he has a solid understanding, and will come out as prudent a young man as any in the kingdom. He is good-natured, so that you may tell him his faults, and he will mend them. He is very taciturn, dexterous enough, and most punctual in the execution of his orders. He is got into the routine of business, and knows well the present state of it.” (Letter from Duke of Newcastle to Mr. Pelham, in Coxe’s Life of Pelham, vol. ii. p. 387.) A portrait not less characteristic of the Duke than of Lord Holderness. His lordship married a lady of the Fagel family, and his mother was daughter of the last Duke of Schomberg. He died 1778, without issue male, and his earldom became extinct. See more of him in Walpole’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 172; and Lord Waldegrave’s Memoirs, p. 121.—E.
58 James Grenville, second brother of Earl Temple. He had already been Deputy Paymaster General, and one of the Lords of Trade, and, lastly, of the Treasury.—E.
59 John Manners, Duke of Rutland, Knight of the Garter, died in 1779, at the age of 83, having survived his gallant and amiable son, the Marquis of Granby.—E.
60 Samuel Lord Sandys, formerly the indefatigable opponent of Sir Robert Walpole; but his importance had greatly diminished since that minister’s downfall. He died in 1770.—E.
61 Thomas Osborne, Duke of Leeds, Knight of the Garter. He married Mary, daughter and co-heir of Francis Earl of Godolphin, and died in 1783, aged 76.—E.
62 Charles Townshend, second son of Charles Viscount Townshend.
63 Gilbert Elliot, afterwards Sir Gilbert.
64 George Bussy Villiers, Viscount Villiers, only son of the Earl of Jersey, whom he afterwards succeeded. He held the post of Lord Chamberlain from 1765 to 1769, and subsequently filled other high offices in the royal household. He died in August, 1805, aged 70.—E.
65 T. Pelham, of Stanmore, afterwards Lord Pelham.
