Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 61.djvu/222

 had already given the lead of the cause to Buxton, whom he now requested to move for a new writ for Bramber. He resolved to leave London, and bought a little property of 140 acres at Highwood Hill, near Mill Hill. There he lived quietly, enjoying his garden and visited by his friends. Mackintosh went to see him, and described him as the ‘most amusable of men.’ No one ‘touched life at so many points,’ and he had still all the charm of youth. On 15 May 1830 he made his last public appearance at a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society, when Clarkson was also present and moved that Wilberforce should take the chair. In 1831 he had to leave Highwood in consequence of a great diminution of fortune. The details are not given. Six persons, one of them a West Indian and another his old political opponent, Lord Fitzwilliam, made offers which ‘would have at once restored his fortune.’ Wilberforce, however, resolved to find a ‘delightful asylum’ with his wife under the roofs of his two sons—Robert, now vicar of East Farleigh in Kent; and Samuel, vicar of Brighstone or Brixton in the Isle of Wight. Wilberforce divided his time between the two. His second daughter died soon afterwards. In May 1833 he went to Bath, after an attack of influenza. His strength, however, declined, and in July he was moved to London. He there heard of the second reading of the bill for the abolition of slavery. He gradually became weaker, and died on 29 July 1833. He had chosen Stoke Newington, where his sister and eldest daughter were buried, as the place for his own grave. In compliance with a requisition signed by all members of parliament whose names could be obtained in the time, he was buried at Westminster Abbey on 5 Aug. The lord chancellor and the speaker of the House of Commons were among the pall-bearers. A statue was placed in Westminster Abbey by public subscription, a column was erected in memory of him at Hull, and a county asylum for the blind was founded in his honour at York. Wilberforce was survived by his four sons: William (b. 1798), Robert Isaac [q. v.], Samuel [q. v.], Henry William [q. v.] His two daughters died before him.

An early portrait of Wilberforce by John Rising [q. v.] is in possession of the family; another of him, aged 11, painted by John Russell, R.A., is in the National Portrait Gallery, London; a later portrait (unfinished) by Sir Thomas Lawrence and one by George Richmond [q. v.] belonged to Sir R. H. Inglis. The Lawrence picture is now in the National Portrait Gallery, London. A fifth portrait (also by Lawrence) is in the combination room of St. John's College, Cambridge. The statue in Westminster Abbey is said to be very like, but almost a caricature.

One most obvious characteristic of Wilberforce was the singular personal attractiveness of which his biographers confessed their inability to give any adequate description. The ‘Recollections’ by John Scandrett Harford [q. v.] and the article in Sir James Stephen's ‘Ecclesiastical Biography,’ founded on personal intercourse in his later years, give some impression of the singular vivacity and playfulness which qualified him to be a favourite of society in his early days. His transparent kindliness and simplicity made him, like Fox, lovable even to his antagonists. His freedom from the coarser indulgences which stained Fox's private life implied also a certain unfitness for the rough game of politics. He escaped contamination at the cost of standing aside from the world of corruption and devoting himself to purely philanthropical measures. The charm of his character enabled him to take the part of moral censor without being morose; and the religious views which in other members of his sect were generally regarded as gloomy, if not pharisaical, were shown by his example to be compatible with indomitable gaiety and sociability. Though profoundly convinced of the corruption of human nature in general, he loved almost every particular human being. His extraordinary breadth and quickness of sympathy led to his taking part in a vast variety of undertakings, which taxed the strength of a delicate constitution and prompted an almost reckless generosity. The slavery agitation happily concentrated his powers upon one main question of the day. His more one-sided supporters, who sometimes lamented the versatility which prevented him from confining his powers to one object, perhaps failed to observe how much his influence even in that direction was strengthened by his sensibility to other claims. He could not be regarded as a fanatic of one idea. He held a unique position in his time as one who was equally respected by his tory allies, by such orthodox whigs as Brougham and Sydney Smith, and by such radicals as Romilly and Bentham. His relations to his own family seem to have been perfect, and no one had warmer or more lasting friendships. Though some injudicious admirers tried to raise his merits by depreciating the claims of his allies and predecessors in the anti-slavery movement, it may safely be said that there are few heroes of philanthropy whose careers will better stand an impartial investigation.