[235] Son of the late Speaker. He became Lord Onslow by the death of his cousin in 1776, was created Earl Onslow in 1801, and died in 1814. He had lived on terms of great intimacy with Wilkes, whom, in a letter printed by Almon, he praises with the warmth of a partisan.--(See Life of Wilkes, vol. v. p. 240.)--E.
[236] The trial terminated in Mr. Onslow’s nonsuit, in consequence of the word _pounds_ being inserted in the record instead of the word _pound_. The case was re-heard at Guildhall, when Mr. Onslow was again nonsuited. The trial was supposed to have cost him 1500_l._ The whole transaction was most discreditable to Mr. Horne.--(Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 196.)--E.
[237] The Duke gives some account, in his plain simple style, of these brutal outrages in his Journal.--(Cavendish, vol. i. p. 621.)--He appears to have had a narrow escape of being murdered at Honiton. It is pleasing to find in his entry of the following day, a picture presenting a striking contrast to this disgraceful tumult:--“I went in the morning to Barwick Place, where my ancestors lived, in Dorsetshire. It is a fine farm, but a dismal place. From thence I went by the sea-side through Kingston Russell farm, to Mr. Hardy, my tenant’s house, where I dined. This is an exceeding fine farm, and has the finest ewe leasows I ever saw in my life. After a very good farmer-like dinner, and a hearty welcome, I set out for Blandford.”--E.
[238] He had, moreover, at his seat at Kingsgate, in the Isle of Thanet, erected a pillar to the honour of Alderman Harley, the most unpopular of all the City’s magistrates.
[239] These accounts were not settled at Lord Holland’s death, and his family profited of the interest of 400,000_l._ still remaining in his hands. Lord North was very earnest to have the account made up, and yet it was not finally closed in the middle of the year 1777, which shows the intricacy and difficulty of terminating such accounts. [The delay was no fault of Lord Holland’s; it arose from the imperfect system of auditing the public accounts in that day. Lord Holland had been out of office only three years and a-half. Mr. Winnington’s accounts for 1744–6 were only settled in 1760, or fourteen years after their close, and Lord Chatham’s remained open for the same period.--(Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. iii. p. 136.)--It should, however, be stated, in fairness to Lord Chatham, that he derived no benefit from the balance in his favour, having left all his receipts in the Bank of England.--(See Lord Holland’s Memorial, and other papers arising out of this accusation in the notes to Woodfall’s Junius, vol. i. p. 184.)--E.]