opposition declaimed against him with great animation and
asperity. "This gentleman," they said, "has at once violated
three distinct duties. He is a privy councillor, and, as such, is
bound to advise the Crown with a view, not to his own selfish
interests, but to the general good. He is the first minister of
finance, and is, as such, bound to be a thrifty manager of the
royal treasure. He is a member of this House, and is, as such,
bound to see that the burdens borne by his constituents are not
made heavier by rapacity and prodigality. To all these trusts he
has been unfaithful. The advice of the privy councillor to his
master is, 'Give me money.' The first Lord of the Treasury signs
a warrant for giving himself money out of the Treasury. The
member for Westminster puts into his pocket money which his
constituents must be taxed to replace." The surprise was
complete; the onset was formidable; but the Whig majority, after
a moment of dismay and wavering, rallied firmly round their
leader. Several speakers declared that they highly approved of
the prudent liberality with which His Majesty had requited the
services of a most able, diligent and trusty counsellor. It was
miserable economy indeed to grudge a reward of a few thousands to
one who had made the State richer by millions. Would that all the
largesses of former kings had been as well bestowed! How those
largesses had been bestowed none knew better than some of the
austere patriots who harangued so loudly against the avidity of
Montague. If there is, it was said, a House in England which has
been gorged with undeserved riches by the prodigality of weak
sovereigns, it is the House of Bath. Does it lie in the mouth of
a son of that house to blame the judicious munificence of a wise
and good King? Before the Granvilles complain that distinguished
merit has been rewarded with ten thousand pounds, let them refund