[187] His long and able services deserved a less tardy reward. He had been minister at Berlin from 1753, and was a constant companion of Frederick the Great during the Seven years’ war. Few understood that monarch better, and few, it is supposed, were loved by him so well. He died at an advanced age in 1771. His correspondence during his embassy, extending to 68 folio volumes, is preserved in the British Museum, and furnishes many valuable illustrations of cotemporary history--especially the letters addressed to him by his correspondents in England. It proves, also, his sagacity in perceiving that the minister of a representative Government requires an intimate knowledge of the state of affairs at home, in order to discharge his duties abroad most to the advantage of his country.--E. [188] Reported under the name of Entick v. Carrington and others, 2 Wilson, 275. The outlawry against Wilkes being unreversed, he could not sue.--E. [189] An account of Terrick has been given in a former page.--E. [190] A better reason for dissolving the Parliament was furnished by the great measures in the contemplation of the new Government. No doubt the character of the House fell in the public estimation by the readiness with which the same individuals concurred in the repeal of Acts passed after due deliberation only in the preceding year. It is true that circumstances had altered in the interval, but the only alteration which the country regarded as influential upon the Parliament, was that which had taken place in the Government. Some politicians of later date have however pronounced it a blunder in any Minister to dissolve Parliament until it has rejected a Government measure.--E. [191] The following are the words of his amendment:-- “To express our just resentment and indignation at the outrageous tumults and insurrections which have been excited and carried on in North America, and at the resistance given by open and rebellious force to the execution of the laws in that part of his Majesty’s dominions.”--E. [192] “He asserted with vehemence his approbation of the Stamp Act, and was for enforcing it: he leant much to Mr. George Grenville’s opinion, soothed him, and sat down determined to vote against his amendment! Mr. Elliot the same; thereby insuring a double protection.”--Mr. Cooke to Mr. Pitt. Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 351.--E. [193] Lord Shelburne appears to have spoken rather against the amendment than for the Ministers. He regarded the language applied to the Americans by the Opposition both in their speeches and the amendment as dangerous, and perhaps imprudent and unjust, and he deprecated a motion which seemed to preclude a repeal before it was considered thoroughly how far it might be necessary. His speech met with Mr. Pitt’s entire approbation.--(Lord Shelburne’s Letter to Mr. Pitt, and the reply in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 353.)--E.