there (Commons' Journals, v. 56). He was apparently a bachelor.
[Gardiner's History, vii. 70, 90, 94; Gent. Mag. 1849 pt. i. 372–3, 1851 pt. ii. 227–34, 377–383; Burke's Peerage, s. v. ‘Buckinghamshire,’ wrongly makes Sir Miles Hobart a son of Sir Henry Hobart [q. v.]]
HOBART, ROBERT, Lord Hobart, fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire (1760–1816), eldest son of George, third earl of Buckinghamshire [q. v.], by his first wife, was born on 6 May 1760, and was educated at Westminster School. He entered the army, becoming lieutenant in the 7th regiment of foot (royal fusiliers) 1 May 1776; served in the American war; rose to the rank of captain in 30th foot regiment 23 July 1778, and was major in 18th regiment of light dragoons from 15 Aug. 1783 to 2 Nov. 1784. He became aide-de-camp to the Duke of Rutland, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in 1784, and to Rutland's successor, George Nugent-Temple-Grenville, marquis of Buckingham [q. v.], in December 1787. He was elected M.P. for Portarlington and for Armagh in the Irish parliament in 1787 and 1790 respectively, and for Bramber and Lincoln in the English parliament in 1788 and 1790. But he resided chiefly in Ireland, and though he retained his seat at Westminster till 1794, only spoke once at any length in the English House of Commons, when he supported the abolition of slavery.
In 1788 and 1789 he acted as inspector of recruiting in Ireland, and in the latter year succeeded William Orde as secretary to Buckingham, the lord-lieutenant, and was made an Irish privy councillor. Contrary to the usual custom, he continued to hold the secretaryship under Buckingham's successor, John Fane, tenth earl of Westmorland [q. v.] Hobart was a man of excellent manners, which rendered him popular even with his political opponents. He was not without ability, but his views were narrow, and his influence on Irish affairs at a very critical period was extremely mischievous. He took a prominent part in the debates in the Irish House of Commons. He was strongly opposed to any concession of political power to the Roman catholics, and did his utmost to frustrate the liberal policy of Pitt and Dundas. He gave a feeble and reluctant support to the slight measure of social relief introduced by Sir Hercules Langrishe [q. v.] in 1792, but he joined Westmorland and Fitzgibbon in trying to render further concession impossible and in arousing an anti-catholic sentiment in the country. His motives were probably quite sincere, but it was scarcely decent, and certainly unwise under the circumstances, to entrust him with the management of the Relief Bill of 1793. He introduced the measure with ill-concealed hostility towards it, and he was largely responsible for its failure to satisfy the aspirations of the catholics and for the evils that flowed therefrom. Consequent on the recall of Lord Westmorland in the autumn of 1793, Hobart (by the death of his uncle now Lord Hobart) resigned his secretaryship. He was made an English privy councillor 1 May 1793, and in the following October was appointed governor of the presidency of Madras, with a provisional succession to the governor-generalship of India.
Hobart arrived at Madras in the summer of 1794, and personally conducted an expedition against Malacca, which resulted in the destruction of the Dutch settlements there. His independent attitude, however, soon brought him into collision with the governor-general, Sir John Shore, afterwards Lord Teignmouth. The dispute was due mainly to the embarrassing state of affairs in the Carnatic and in Tanjore, but it was intensified by the fact that the head of the supreme government was inferior in personal rank to the head of the subordinate government. Shortly after Hobart's arrival, Mohammed Ali, nabob of the Carnatic, died, and his death seemed in Hobart's opinion to present a favourable opportunity to introduce certain necessary reforms in the financial administration of that province for the purpose of relieving the unhappy ryots from the oppressive tyranny of the money-lenders. Unfortunately, the new nabob, Obut ul Omrah, refused to consent to Hobart's humane policy, and in justification of his refusal appealed to the agreement of 1792 between his predecessor and Lord Cornwallis, which it was the very object of Hobart's plan to annul. Thereupon Hobart, without consulting Shore, announced his intention of seizing the district of Tinnevelly in liquidation of the nabob's debt to the company, and of insisting upon the surrender of the Carnatic forts. To this, however, the supreme government objected, as an unjust invasion of the rights which had been secured to the nabob by the treaty of 1792. An appeal was made to the court of directors, and, after a careful examination of the case, the court decided to uphold their governor-general and to recall Hobart. Pending the arrival of their decision, a fresh dispute of a like kind arose between the two governments in regard to Hobart's dealings with the rajah of Tanjore. In this case, however, Hobart was successful in persuading the rajah, Ameer Sing, to surrender the mortgaged territory; and, though Sir John Shore persisted in his opinion that the rajah had
