[ 558 ]

which generally requires maturity of years to be united with genius.

August 2, 1794, Mr. Burke met with a domestic loss, which afflicted him very heavily, in the death of his only son. That gentleman had given proofs of considerable abilities. Those who were most intimate with him give him the praise of a clear, acute, and vigorous understanding; and affirm that, if his health had permitted the close and intense application which he was disposed to bestow, he would have equalled most men of his age. Even with the interrupted attention which he was able to give, he had acquired the high opinion of men of rank and talents; an opinion which his conduct as agent for the Roman Catholics of Ireland confirmed. On the nomination of Lord Fitzwilliam to the viceroyalty of Ireland, Mr. Burke was appointed his secretary; but his premature death inter vened. He was deeply conversant in the history and constitution both of Ireland and Britain. He is said to have ministered to the genius of his father in collating some of the instances of speeches and opinions by old Whigs, to whom his father appeals from the new. He died at Cromwell-house, Brompton, aged 36, and was buried in Beaconsfield church. His father could never after bear to see the place of his interment; and when going from his villa to town, instead of coming through Beaconsfield, he took a cross road behind an eminence which

intercepted the sight of the church. But although he felt his sorrows as a man, he bore them as a man. His grief was, " His grief was. "strong and deep," (says the Editor of his Posthumous Works) " but it never relaxed the vigour of his mind, whatever subject called upon him to exert it ; nor the interest which he took, to the last moment, in the public weal.” *

On the subject of the Irish Catholics, the opinion of Burke, as often expressed, and parti. cularly in his Letter to Sir Hercules Langrish, was, that a gradual and modified relief should be granted to them, so that they might finally be raised to a level with other dissenters.

At the state trials, Burke's name had been very freely mentioned by the first judicial orator of this country and age. Some months after, on the return of Lord Fitzwilliam, when the causes of the recall were the subject of inquiry by the Peers, the Duke of Norfolk threw out some reflections against Mr. Burke," as having written a book, which, amidst much splendour of eloquence, contained much pernicious doctrine, and had provoked, on the other side, a very mischievous answer." This attack drew from Burke a reply, in which he also took notice of the animadversions made on his works

ર

* The beginning of the same year he lost his brother Richard, whom he most affectionately loved.

+ Preface to Posthumous Works, page 67.

at the trials. The letter is dated May 26, 1795) and shews that his domestic affliction had not impaired the vigour of his faculties: it was addressed to his highly prized friend Mr. Windham. Burke directs chiefly against his oppo nents his versatile, sportive, but strong and sarcastic humour. He enters into a most eloquent vindication of his own conduct respecting the French revolution; protesting that his object was the preservation of that religion, virtue, and happiness, which the French system was using every effort to destroy. He strongly expresses his regret that the King of Prussia had abandoned the alliance; and endeavours to demonstrate that nothing short of a general combination, pursuing the same object in concert, will prevent the French system from overwhelming Europe.

Soon after the death of his son, the King was pleased to settle a considerable pension on him and Mrs. Burke His detractors had alledged that his embarrassed circumstances had been the cause of the part he took in the French revolution; that he wished to conciliate the favour of Ministry, and thought this a very advantageous opportunity. To assign motives is so much easier than to combat arguments, that it is not surprising that many of Mr. Burke's opponents have chosen that mode. To promote effectually even the purposes of malignity, requires an invention not merely following the

3

suggestions of malice, but regarding also consistency and probability. The general character of Burke, his sacrifice of interest to principle, or even to party, with very little intermission from the year 1765 to 1790 (for it cannot well be doubted, that if he had chosen to sacrifice other considerations to his interest, he might have got into office) renders the charge improbable. What, however, is improbable may be true. It is possible that one may act the part of an honest disinterested man for twenty-five years, and turn a rogue the twentysixth. But it is to be presumed he will not become so gratuitously. Supposing, as Mr. McCormick asserts, that Edmund Burke had humbly applied to Ministry to admit him as one of their creatures, would he desert all his old friends for nothing? If he became the tool of corruption, where was the bribe? If he attack, ed French liberty to please the British Ministry; if, to` gratify them, he attempted to shew the evils of untried theories, and especially of such a theory as theirs, he certainly conducted himself very foolishly in procuring no emolument, no appointment, no official situation from them during the time that he bore the brunt of the battle. While in parliament, and that he could effectually serve them, he received nothing. The pension was presented to him when he was no longer in a situation to give them his as. sistance. It must therefore have been some

other cause, not a bargain for gain, that made him attack the French system. Besides, if he were ever so corrupt, his arguments depended upon their intrinsic force, not on his motives for wielding that force.

His pension having become the subject of disapprobation from Lord Lauderdale and the Duke of Bedford, he, in the beginning of 1796, wrote a Letter to a noble Lord, (Lord Fitzwilliam) on the strictures made on him by Lord Lauderdale and the Duke of Bedford. There are occasions on which it becomes a duty to assert one's own merits. This Burke does in the letter in question. Firmly, but without arrogance, he goes over his reform plans, his proceedings respecting India, and others of the principal acts of his life. What he says of his services to this country, impartial examiners of his conduct must think MUCH LESS than truth would have justified, or even occasion required. The retrospective view of the means by which the Duke of Bedford's ancestors acquired their property must have been the mere effect of anger at a censure passed on a just recompence, . and not intended as reasoning. It is generally said that Burke's account of 'the Russell acquirements is erroneous; but however that may be, it was foreign to the purpose. The Duke of Bedford had a right to inquire into the disposal of the public money. Mr. Burke could have proved, as Lord Grenville did prove,