_1_
Early in 1778 a new satirical poet caused a flutter in the polite circles
of London. Within a few weeks of one another two poems, _The Project_
and _The Wreath of Fashion_, were issued by Becket, the bookseller of
the Adelphi in the Strand. Though anonymous, their author was soon known
to be a young barrister named Richard Tickell. _The Project_ treats of
a scheme overlooked by the Academy of Projectors which Captain Gulliver
visited in the course of his third voyage. In deft octosyllabics the
satirist proposes applying Montesquieu’s discovery of the effect of
climate on character to the problem of the parliamentary Opposition:
Suppose the Turks, who now agree
It wou’d _fatigue_ them to be free,
Should build an ice-house, to debate
More _cooly_ on affairs of state,
Might not some Mussulmen be brought,
To brace their minds, nor shrink at thought?
Surely the philosophers are right who have reasoned that England’s
northern air is accountable for Englishmen’s love of liberty, and many
a question has been lost by Administration from Parliament’s meeting in
cold weather. An obvious solution would be to alter the season of meeting:
But ah, what honest squire would stay
To make his _speech_, instead of _hay_?
The _Beaux_ would scarcely think of law,
To give up _Scarborough_ or _Spa’_:
And say ye _sportsmen_, wou’d a member
Attend _St. Stephen’s_ in September?
The poet’s more feasible plan is a better mode of heating the Parliament
buildings. He suggests that in each House, replacing the table where
votes, journals, and mace are laid, a vast “_Buzaglo_”[1] be set up; that
is, an open fire of intense heat, over which a Fire Committee should
preside with a fuel supply of seditious tracts—_Junius_, _Common Sense_,
and the works of Tucker and Price. Such a device will mollify the most
inveterate foes of Administration:
From bench to bench, in spite of gout,
The soften’d _Chatham_ moves about:
“My good _Lord Sandwich_, how d’ye do?
I like the speech; ’twas penn’d by you.
America has gone too far;
We must support so just a war.”
The reviewers were delighted with the poem, so distinguished by its good
nature and wit amid the current tide of party polemics. The connoisseur
in Horace Walpole was stronger than his Whiggism, and he found _The
Project_ excellent.[2] Dr. Johnson, who disapproved of flippancy in
politics, dissented. At a dinner party at Sir Joshua Reynolds’ on the
25th of April, Dr. Samuel Musgrave, the learned editor of Euripides, read
the new poem. Johnson was not amused. “A temporary poem always entertains
us,” urged Musgrave. “So,” replied Johnson, “does an account of the
criminals hanged yesterday entertain us.”[3]
Rather ungratefully, Tickell followed up his reception as a poet in the
circles of _ton_ with a satire on one of society’s most conspicuous
foibles. _The Wreath of Fashion, or, the Art of Sentimental Poetry_,
said _The Critical Review_ in its notice, “is levelled at the same vice
in the poetical world, at which the School for Scandal was aimed in
the theatrical and moral worlds,—at the present fashionable strain of
sentimental whining.”[4] It was an age of rhyming peers. Tickell declared
in the preface that he was prompted to write his satire by reading a
recent volume by a noble author (whom he did not name but who was the
Earl of Carlisle, Byron’s “Lord, rhymester, petit-maître, pamphleteer”)
containing one ode on the death of Mr. Gray and two on the death of his
lordship’s spaniel. In _The Wreath of Fashion_ Tickell deplored, with
Sheridan, the vogue of tearful comedies and gently rebuked the inanities
of newspaper poets. His chief ridicule was reserved for the poetic salon
of Mrs. “Calliope” Miller at Batheaston, where the quality from Bath
wrote _bouts-rimés_ about buttered muffins and the like, dropped them
into a classic vase, and applauded the winners crowned by Mrs. Miller
with wreaths of myrtle.[5] Over these rites of poetic sensibility,
said the satirist, the goddess Fashion presides, and thus she must be
supplicated:
On a spruce pedestal of _Wedgwood ware_,
Where motley forms, and tawdry emblems glare,
Behold she consecrates to cold applause,
A Petrefaction, work’d into a _Vase_:
The Vase of Sentiment!—to this impart
Thy kindred coldness, and congenial art....
With votive song, and tributary verse,
Fashion’s gay train her gentle rites rehearse.
What soft poetic incense breathes around!
What soothing hymns from Adulation sound!
_The Wreath of Fashion_ went through a half-dozen editions. David Garrick
wrote a puff for it in _The Monthly Review_ in which he ventured to
prophesy that “elegant poetry, refined satire, and exquisite irony” would
be revived by the new author;[6] and Samuel Rogers, belated Augustan that
he was, always remembered _The Wreath_ as an early favorite.[7]
_2_
Who was the new poet? The turn of his couplets and the delicate barbs of
his satire suggested a poetic school then growing outmoded. There were
those who, when they learned his name, remembered his grandfather, Thomas
Tickell, a poet of Queen Anne’s day and the particular friend of Mr.
Addison. Thomas Tickell (1685-1740) served as Addison’s Under-Secretary
of State and retained his post under Craggs and Carteret. In 1724,
when Carteret became Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Tickell was sent to
Dublin as Secretary to the Lords Justices. There were cordial relations
between Dublin Castle and the Deanery of St. Patrick’s, and a circle of
friends that included Swift, the Delanys, Lord Orrery, and Dr. Sheridan
maintained in Dublin an outpost of Augustan literary society. In this
propitious atmosphere John Tickell, eldest son of Thomas and father of
Richard, our poet, was born in 1729 and grew up to take his place among
the Dublin _virtuosi_. But he had a volatile character and fell into
a train of misadventures and difficulties. In 1748 he made a runaway
marriage with Esther (or Hester) Pierson, and children to the number of
six followed in rapid succession.[8] At length he became disastrously
involved in Anglo-Irish politics while serving on the court side as a
magistrate after the Dublin riots in December 1759.[9] His conduct on
this occasion, though its precise nature is not clear, excited such
indignation that he was obliged to leave Dublin. In 1765, according to
information in the Tickell family papers, his mother purchased for him
a civil appointment at Windsor Castle; but some years later, like other
indigent Englishmen at that period, he went to live on the Continent and
disappeared from sight.
Richard, the second son of John Tickell, is usually said to have
been born at Bath in 1751, but neither the place nor the date can be
verified. He and his elder brother Thomas were briefly at Westminster
School (from 19 June 1764); when their father went to Windsor Castle,
they were transferred to Eton (29 May 1765); three years later Richard
proceeded to the Middle Temple (8 November 1768).[10] Having in due time
been called to the bar, he was, about the beginning of 1777, appointed
by Lord Chancellor Bathurst a commissioner of bankrupts. However, as a
contemporary biographer remarked, law was not to Tickell’s taste; “his
disposition was too volatile and desultory for that study.”[11] In April
or May 1778 he was removed from his post. Doubtless his courtship of the
muses had been at the expense of the law, for his fellow-commissioners
had complained of his absences. Tickell turned in his distress to his
most influential friend, David Garrick, who at once interceded for him
with the Lord Chancellor, by way of Lady Bathurst.[12] Garrick obtained
from Bathurst a promise of reinstatement, but in June Bathurst was
succeeded by Edward Thurlow, and Garrick had to begin all over again.
His further attempts met with no success. “I am sorry we were both so
unsuccessful in our Schems with the present Chancellor,” Garrick was
informed by Lady Bathurst on the 25th of July; “I do assure you I did my
part for Mʳ Tickle but I find he has enemies who flung cold water on my
solicitations.”[13] The news plunged Tickell into despair.
But Fortune is capricious, and at this moment Tickell made the
acquaintance of one who was even closer than Garrick to the springs of
patronage. This was William Brummell, whose only claim to remembrance
today is the fact that he had a very famous son, but who appears in
late eighteenth-century memoirs as an able backstairs politician and
private secretary to Lord North. Brummell, we are informed by the
_Biographia Dramatica_, “conceived a strong friendship for our author,
and patronised him with a generosity and warmth that did him honour.”[14]
With the approval and perhaps at the instigation of Lord North, Tickell
was at once set to work on a secret and important project. On the 7th of
November he wrote Garrick pleading to be excused from writing a prologue
that had been requested of him:
You may be assured Mr. Garrick’s wishes shall always have the
force of commands with me; but when I acquaint you that at
present ... I am employed in a work that may make or mar my
fortune, I can scarcely think you would wish to interrupt my
attention to it.[15]
On Monday the 23rd of that month, three days before Parliament met for
the new session, Becket announced the publication of a work entitled
“_ANTICIPATION_, Containing the Substance of his M⸻y’s most gracious
Speech to both H⸺s of P⸻t, on the Opening of the approaching Session.
Together with a full and authentic account of the Debate in the H⸺ of C⸻,
that will take place on the motion for the address and amendment.” On
Tuesday night Edward Gibbon wrote his friend Holroyd:
You sometimes complain that I do not send you early news;
but you will now be satisfied with receiving a full and true
account of all the parliamentary transactions of _next_
Thursday. In town we think it an excellent piece of humour
(the author is one Tickell). Burke and C. Fox are pleased with
their own Speaches, but serious Patriots groan that such things
should be turned to farce.[16]
Horace Walpole, though unable to deny the wit of _Anticipation_, was
among those who thought its jocularity ill-timed. Said he:
The drollery of the pamphlet was congenial with the patron: a
very unprosperous and disgraceful civil war, just heightened by
a bloody proclamation of Sir Henry Clinton, and accompanied by
a war with France, was not a very decent moment for joking![17]
_3_
No one in any party was disposed to deny the seriousness of the moment.
The preceding twelve months, as some were then aware, had proved the
turning-point in the war with America. The threat of French aggression
following Burgoyne’s defeat had transformed Britain’s war of subjugation
into one of defence. After a comfortable winter in Philadelphia, without
having struck a blow at the inferior American forces at Valley Forge, Sir
William Howe was ordered to evacuate that city lest it be cut off by a
French fleet. Englishmen at home could still cling to the official view,
held by George III and expressed by Lord North in _Anticipation_, that
most Americans, if given a chance to choose, would prefer conciliation
with England to an upstart democracy and an “unnatural connection” with
France. But those on the spot saw that the hope of affording Americans
such a chance was now dashed. At Philadelphia Admiral Lord Howe’s
secretary wrote in his journal on the 22nd of May:
I now look upon the Contest as at an End. No man can be
expected to declare for us, when he cannot be assured of a
Fortnight’s Protection. Every man, on the contrary, whatever
might have been his primary Inclinations, will find it his
Interest to oppose & drive us out of the Country.[18]
Two days later General Howe set sail for England and left Sir Henry
Clinton to evacuate the troops in June. The incompetence or treachery
of an American officer, Charles Lee, saved Clinton’s regiments from
severe losses as they crossed New Jersey. After their arrival within
the fortifications around New York, the British held not a square mile
elsewhere on the mainland of the northern and middle colonies.
The summer was occupied with raids by British irregulars on the
Pennsylvania and New York frontier and a series of inconclusive feints
and chases between Admirals Howe and D’Estaing. In September Howe
resigned his command and followed his brother home to England. Deeply
disgruntled with Administration, the Howes joined General Burgoyne in
efforts to obtain satisfaction from Parliament. The Whigs, hoping for
disclosures embarrassing to the government, at once took up the cause of
the commanders; while the ministers, with equal determination, resisted
every move for a court-martial or inquiry.
During this year the Tory government had been as hard pressed at home
as the King’s forces had been abroad. The news of Saratoga, received
early in December 1777, struck a staggering blow to the ministers,
who at once adjourned Parliament for six weeks and endeavored to open
indirect and secret negotiations with the American commissioners in
Paris. When Parliament reconvened, Fox’s motion in the Commons “that no
more of the Old Corps be sent out of the kingdom” produced a suddenly
swollen minority. There was a cry throughout the country for Chatham.
North had lost his zest for the war and would willingly have retired in
favor of Chatham, but the King refused to consider such a move. In a
desperate effort to counteract American negotiations with France, North
then introduced, 17 February 1778, his conciliatory bills, which offered
the repeal of the acts that had offended the colonists and conceded all
but the name of independence. While the House was recovering from its
amazement Charles Fox rose and said that he was glad Ministers had at
last concurred with the long-standing views of Opposition. But had not
their repentance come too late? Did not Ministers know that a commercial
treaty between France and America had already been signed?[19] “Acts of
Parliament have made a war,” Walpole wrote Sir Horace Mann three days
later, “but cannot repeal one.”[20] On the 13th of March the French
ambassador in London announced the treaty of friendship between France
and the United States. Thereafter no one in either party expected much
of North’s commission to treat with America. Detained in England until
mid-April, the commissioners arrived in the Delaware a whole month after
Congress had ratified the treaty with France and, to their great chagrin,
just in time to take part in the retreat from Philadelphia. One member
of the commission, George Johnstone, after futile private overtures to
members of Congress, quarreled with his colleagues and returned in a
huff to vindicate himself and criticize ministers and commanders before
Parliament. On the whole, the commission did little more than aggravate
the ill-feeling on both sides.
On the 7th of April, after a long absence, Lord Chatham, wrapped in
flannels and supported by his sons, took his seat in the House of Lords.
Rising for the second time in the debate to speak on the American war,
he was struck down by an apoplexy from which he never recovered. His
death, on the 11th of May, was believed and said by many to be a portent
of doom to the Empire.
Meanwhile the specter of a French invasion caused the King late in March
to communicate to Parliament his intention of ordering the militia “to
be drawn out and embodied, and to march as occasion shall require.” Five
encampments were established; peers and M.P.’s, Whig and Tory alike,
hastened to raise regiments; and by June Gibbon could tell Holroyd that
“The chief conversation at Almack’s is about tents, drill-Serjeants,
subdivisions, firings, &c.”[21] All summer and autumn the country was
full of marching and countermarching for the edification of anxious
royalty. In the newspapers appeared advertisements for “martial balsam,”
recommended for those afflicted by toothache from exposure to damp
canvas and mattresses. Even theater business was depressed by the rage
for visiting the encampments. Sheridan, ever resourceful, dashed off as
a counter-attraction his entertainment of _The Camp_, with a musical
arrangement by Thomas Linley, a prologue by Tickell, and (according to
the newspaper notices) “a perspective Representation of the GRAND CAMP at
COXHEATH, from a view taken by Mr. de Loutherbourg and erected under his
direction.”
All this was diverting, but in midsummer occurred an incident that
betrayed to the nation the smoldering antagonism between ministers and
commanders. In the previous March Admiral Keppel, a staunch Whig who had
refused to serve against America, had been promoted commander of the
Channel fleet. He found, contrary to the Admiralty’s repeated assurances
in Parliament, that ships and equipment were woefully inadequate for his
crucial task of defending the coasts. At length reinforced, Keppel on
the 27th of July engaged the Brest fleet off Ushant. In command of the
British rearward squadron was Sir Hugh Palliser, a Tory M.P. and a Lord
of the Admiralty. Following a short and indecisive action, Keppel gave
orders for a new line of battle, but Palliser did not obey until after
dark. By morning the French had escaped. Keppel did not report Palliser’s
insubordination, but accounts of the action appeared in the papers, and
before the opening of Parliament the incident had become a heated party
issue, with Keppel exalted as a popular hero and Palliser condemned as
the agent of a negligent and scheming ministry.
_4_
Affairs stood in this critical posture when Parliament was summoned
in the last week of November. Fearing defection in the Tory ranks,
North called a private meeting of his friends beforehand to consult on
strategy. He was himself there taxed with negligence, and extraordinary
steps were taken to secure attendance in the government seats. Now a
favorite parliamentary weapon of North’s had always been humor—or, as
his opponents styled it, “buffoonery.” His motto, said Walpole, ought
to have been “_Aut dormitabo, aut ridebo_.”[22] And when _Anticipation_
appeared, it was widely believed that North himself had had a hand in its
composition.[23] The very favorable reception of the pamphlet must have
surpassed the hopes of both author and patron. For some days the papers
printed eulogistic notices and long extracts. Representative is the
comment in _The Morning Chronicle_ on the day the session opened:
The literary piece of mimickry published on Monday last, under
the title of _Anticipation_, is beyond compare one of the
ablest sketches ever hit off by a man of fancy and talents.
Mimicks in general distort the features of those they affect
to imitate; the author of _Anticipation_, on the contrary,
has preserved the _vrais-semblance_ of each of the objects of
imitation with wonderful correctness, and it is a question
whether he deserves most applause for the humorous conceits
with which he has dished out the oratory of his heroes, or the
striking likenesses (in point of order, argument, imagery, and
diction) which he has drawn of each speaker. Lord G[ranb]y’s
harangue is, to those who have not been in the House of Commons
on the first day of a session, a perfect example of Opposition
oratory on such an occasion.—Mr. T. L[uttre]ll’s speech need
not have had his name prefixed to it; no member, T. L[uttre]ll
excepted, could possibly shew so much learning to so little
purpose.... In a word, _Anticipation_ is one of the best
pamphlets the publick have been favoured with for years, and
though it has in some measure a political tendency, ... it
serves, contrary to the effect of most political pamphlets, to
put all parties in good humour.
The good nature of the parody was remarked by all who spoke of it.
Certainly the pleasantest circumstance of the whole episode is the fact
that some of the victims of Tickell’s mimicry enjoyed the humor of it;
though we learn from Walpole that Welbore Ellis, “another justly and
humourously drawn, proved how justly. He said, ‘It is well written, but I
perceive the author takes me for a dull man.’”[24]
According to a tradition that is not implausible, North and his friends
took copies of _Anticipation_ into the House on the opening day and
dispensed them gratis.[25] An apparent consequence of this was Tickell’s
luckiest satirical stroke, by virtue of which _Anticipation_ lived on in
the memory of anecdotists. Walpole, who was on the spot, reported that
Col. Isaac Barré, an Opposition stalwart, “not having seen this pamphlet,
the first day of the Session cited a foreign Governor with whom he was
acquainted, exactly in the manner here ridiculed, and he also translated
a French expression.”[26] This episode grew appreciably in the telling.
In 1823 Joseph Jekyll told Tom Moore (who wrote down everything he heard)
of the
laughable effect on the House of Col. Barré’s speech; he being
the only one (having just arrived from the country) ignorant of
the pamphlet, and falling exactly into the same peculiarities
which the pamphlet quizzed, particularly that of quoting French
words and then translating them. At every new instance of this
kind in his speech there was a roar of laughter from the House,
which Barré, of course, could not understand.[27]
But this was not the last refinement. The progress of the story, from
contemporary witnesses to Jekyll and Moore and finally to “Senex”
writing his recollections in _Blackwood’s_ in 1826, is an illustration
and a warning of the ways of anecdotists. The humorous success of
_Anticipation_, wrote “Senex,”
I well remember.... The style of the speeches was so
well imitated, and the matter in many cases so happily
forestalled, that, like Vulcan among Homer’s gods, it caused
inextinguishable laughter. What gave much zest to the joke
was the ignorance of most of the usual speaking members that
any such pamphlet existed. Their great surprise at the loud
mirth excited by speeches intended to make a very different
impression, and the frequent cries of “Spoke, Spoke!” the
meaning of which they could not possibly comprehend, may be
easily conceived. One of its effects was to shorten the
debate, for, as the joke soon spread, many were afraid to
address the House for fear of involving themselves in the
predicament of those who had been so humorously anticipated.[28]
_5_
_Anticipation_ had a great run. Such was the popular demand that a
“Fourth Edition” was advertised by Becket within a week of first
publication. Five more London editions and a Dublin reprint appeared
before the end of the year. As soon as copies reached America,
_Anticipation_ was reprinted at both the British headquarters in New York
and the American headquarters in Philadelphia. In announcing his New
York reprint, James Rivington stated, with what degree of exaggeration
the reader is free to guess, that “such was the reception given to this
novel and immensely admired piece, that more than _Forty Thousand_ copies
were disposed of in a few days.”[29] In London a rash of imitations broke
out at once. _Altercation_, _Deliberation_, _Anticipation Continued_,
_Anticipation for the Year MDCCLXXIX_, _The Exhibition, or a Second
Anticipation_—all these appeared within a year. As late as 1812 appeared
_Anticipation: or, The Prize Address; which will be delivered at the
Opening of the New Drury Lane Theatre_, a squib inspired by the same
circumstances that gave rise to the celebrated _Rejected Addresses_
of James and Horace Smith. And there were others. But, as Dr. Johnson
remarked of _The Splendid Shilling_, “the merit of such performances
begins and ends with the first author.”[30]
There was another result of the publication of the satire that, to
Tickell, was perhaps the most gratifying of all. The author was right,
observed _The London Magazine_ in its review, in predicting a majority
for Administration in his mimic debate; “and we verily believe he might
have added by way of note at the end—‘This will get me a place or a
pension.’”[31] This impertinence was justified by the event. On the 6th
of December Richard Rigby, Paymaster and general factotum in North’s
cabinet, wrote David Garrick a short but meaningful note: “I have had
a meeting with _Anticipation_, and like him very much; I wish to have
some further discourse with you upon that subject. Could you call here
to-morrow morning about eleven?”[32] The subject was unquestionably a
ministerial reward for services rendered. About this time Tickell was
granted a pension of 200_l._ _per annum_.[33] Soon afterward an anonymous
poet of the Batheaston circle returned good for evil in praising Tickell
while attempting to recall him to virtue:
Some writers be of an amphibious race,
And prose and verse their elemental place.
Such he, whose wit made wond’ring senates roar,
And those to blush that never blush’d before.
_Anticipation_ gave him sterling fame,
_The Wreath of Fashion_ a poetic name.
And Nature gave, and at the gift repines,
At pension’d wit and prostituted lines.
Be your’s, O _Tickell_, to correct this vice,
That deals out praise or censure at a price,
And in one grand example prove to men,
How weak is Wit, when Party holds the pen;
And while you glow with more than virtue’s flame,
And all admire from whence such virtue came,
Each literary Swiss shall dread thy rage,
Dismiss their weapons, and no more engage.[34]
But man cannot live by wit alone. In the next two years Tickell wrote
two more satirical tracts for the ministry, which, though not dull, were
scarcely inspired; and in August 1781 he was appointed a commissioner
of the Stamp Office. Here, with other beneficiaries of ministerial
generosity and a salary of 500_l._, he stayed. A year earlier (25 July
1780) he had married Miss Mary Linley, a charming and witty young lady if
less renowned than her sister Elizabeth (Mrs. Richard Brinsley Sheridan).
In September 1782, doubtless through the good offices of Lord North, they
settled in an apartment in the Gold Staff Gallery at the top of Hampton
Court Palace.[35] Tickell’s talents were useful in the Linley-Sheridan
family enterprise of Drury Lane Theatre. He served in the capacity of Mr.
Puff as “a Practitioner of Panegyric” in the newspapers, refurbished old
plays, and tried his hand, with mild success, at composing librettos.
When Fox and North formed their coalition government (of unhappy
memory), Tickell’s political allegiance was transferred to the Whigs.
That he had long had a preference for Whig society appears from the
satirical-affectionate picture of Brooks’s Club in his _Epistle from
the Honourable Charles Fox, Partridge-Shooting, to the Honourable John
Townshend, Cruising_, 1779. The devoted but sharp-tongued Mrs. Tickell
informed her sister in a letter of 1785: “So I find the election has
taken a happy turn at last and I am to congratulate myself with being
the wife of a member of Brooks’s.... T. is delighted; the great point
of his ambition is gained.”[36] To which she added, at the thought of
her husband’s increased opportunities for conviviality: “Farewell, a
long farewell to all my comforts.”[37] From the many fragments of Mary
Tickell’s spritely letters that have been printed here and there, it is
impossible not to give at least one representative passage showing both
husband and wife in character. In an undated letter from Hampton Court
she wrote:
The men stayed last night or rather this morning till four or
five tho’ I entreated T⸺. to think of to-night’s fatigue for
me and let them go, but ’twas all in vain, for the moment my
back was turn’d off they march’d into the other room with their
Bottles and Glasses and order’d Stephen to bring the fire after
them—so at least they had the grace to think of not disturbing
me, for you are to know since the cold wether we dine and sup
in the Drawing Room. However unfortunately my ears were quick
enough to reach to Stephen’s Pantry where I heard every cruel
Pop of that odious five shilling claret which entirely hindered
my closing my eyes, so here I am at half past one just after
breakfast and thinking of my evening’s dissipation. Don’t you
think that I should cut a figure in the great world?[38]
As a member of the glittering Whig fraternity that moved about Fox,
Sheridan, and the Prince of Wales, Tickell became a large contributor to
the great collective (and perennial) satire known as _The Rolliad_, a
shilling edition of which, George Saintsbury once remarked, if properly
annotated, would keep one amused from London to York. He also produced a
number of more or less serious pamphlets attacking Pitt’s government; and
during the regency crisis of 1788-89 he worked feverishly with the other
Foxites in the expectation of a Whig triumph. But the King recovered, the
Whigs’ hopes were dashed, and Tickell never obtained his expected seat in
Parliament.[39]
Mary Tickell died in July 1787. Two years later Tickell eloped with the
daughter of a captain in the East India Company’s service, Miss Sarah
Ley, a reigning beauty who was for a time the rival of Emma Hamilton as
Romney’s model.[40] She was very young, very extravagant, and without any
fortune. In a year or two her husband, who was chronically improvident
and was now deprived of Mary Tickell’s common sense, found himself
overwhelmed with debts. In May 1793 he appealed to Warren Hastings
for a loan of 500_l._ and obtained it.[41] Hastings was a friend of
the Ley family, but that an intimate of the Fox-Sheridan circle and a
contributor to _The Rolliad_ should have turned to him for help is an
indication of Tickell’s desperate straits. The loan was evidently not
sufficient for his needs. On the 4th of November his lifeless body was
found below the parapet outside his Hampton Court apartment. Two days
later Joseph Farington recorded in his _Diary_: “Distressed circumstances
and an apprehension of being arrested, it is said, is the cause of this
momentary phrenzy.”[42]
_6_
As a successful parody of parliamentary proceedings and eloquence at
the time of the American Revolution, _Anticipation_ retains historical
interest. One reviewer went so far as to say that a comparison of the
actual debate with Tickell’s anticipated version would show that between
the two “the difference as to the material grounds of disputation is
trifling.”[43] This is scarcely an exaggeration, though, as it turned
out, the House was less full and the debate less animated than had been
expected from the presence in town of so many generals and admirals
known to be at odds with one another and the ministers. As a parodist,
however, Tickell was less concerned to present the substance of a
particular debate than the idiosyncracies of those who spoke frequently
in the House, whether from Opposition or Administration benches. The
verisimilitude of his subjects’ accents, attitudes, and hobby-horses
of theme was unanimously acknowledged and praised by contemporaries.
_Anticipation_ is in short a speaking picture of that House of Commons
in which, as well as in America, a bitter conflict was in progress. Here
are Burke’s rumbling periods on the decline of the British Empire, and
Fox’s skilful arguments to show that neither an offensive nor a defensive
war can be successfully continued in America. David Hartley the younger
quotes the recent sentiments of his friend Benjamin Franklin in Paris,
and a radical Member from the City praises Washington and threatens
ministers with the Tower and the block. Other Whigs attack profiteering
army contractors, false news in the _Gazettes_, and the employment of
Indians to butcher the colonists; others demand parliamentary inquiries
that government officials suggest deferring until “about six months after
Christmas.” Late in the evening Lord North rises and, after invoking the
mighty shade of Chatham, takes up his secretary’s notes on speeches by
the Opposition and urges upon an unruly House the need of unanimity.
It is a vivid and authentic picture, and it is also an entertaining
one. Though parody is a minor genre, it has its masterpieces. But
they should be read rather than talked about. Let the last opinion on
_Anticipation_ be that of George IV, who was a person of discernment
in these matters. J. W. Croker recorded in his diary that at a royal
dinner-party in January 1822 the talk had turned to Tickell. The King
spoke of _Anticipation_ “_con amore_ and quoted some of the speeches.” He
promised to have a copy looked out for Lady Conyngham, who had never read
it. “The events and the pieces were gone by,” said the King; “but the wit
and pleasantry of it never could fade.”[44]
_NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION_
[1] A certain A. Buzaglo, who had a shop in the Strand, opposite Somerset
House, frequently advertised in the newspapers in 1778. His warming-pans,
for curing the gout, were highly recommended to the nobility.
[2] Letter to Mason, 18 April 1778 (_The Letters of Horace Walpole_, ed.
Mrs. Paget Toynbee, Oxford, 1903-05, X, 222).
[3] _Boswell’s Life of Johnson_, ed. G. B. Hill and L. F. Powell, Oxford,
1934—, III, 318.
[4] XLV, 1778, 310.
[5] See Ruth A. Hesselgrave, _Lady Miller and the Batheaston Literary
Circle_, New Haven, 1927.
[6] LIX, 1778, 145. Garrick acknowledged his authorship of this review in
a letter to Hannah More, misdated 1777, in William Roberts, _Memoirs of
... Mrs. Hannah More_, 3rd ed., 1835, I, 116.
[7] _The Farington Diary_, ed. James Greig, New York, 1923-28, I, 186;
_Recollections of the Table-Talk of Samuel Rogers_ [ed. Alexander Dyce],
New York, 1856, pp. 71-72.
[8] _Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica_, new ser., II, 1877, 473; Sir
[John] Bernard Burke, _Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed
Gentry of Great Britain & Ireland_, 9th ed., 1898, II, “Ireland,” p.
441; Richard Eustace Tickell, _Thomas Tickell and the Eighteenth Century
Poets_, 1931, p. 173 and “Tickell Pedigree.”
[9] A long letter from John Tickell to the Duke of Newcastle, 26
August 1767, alludes to these circumstances and appeals to Newcastle’s
generosity (Newcastle Papers, British Museum Add. MSS. 32,984, f. 350).
[10] G. F. R. Barker and A. H. Stenning (compilers), _The Record of Old
Westminsters_, 1928, II, 919; R. A. Austen-Leigh (ed.), _The Eton College
Register, 1753-1790_, Eton, 1921, p. 517; John Hutchinson, _A Catalogue
of Notable Middle Templars_, 1902, p. 242.
[11] David Erskine Baker, Isaac Reed, and Stephen Jones (compilers),
_Biographia Dramatica_, 1812, I, 713.
[12] Tickell to Garrick, 11 May 1778 (_Private Correspondence of David
Garrick_ [ed. James Boaden], 1831-32, II, 304).
[13] Unpublished letter in the Theatre Collection, Harvard College
Library.
[14] I, 713-714.
[15] Garrick, _Private Correspondence_, II, 317.
[16] _Private Letters of Edward Gibbon_, ed. R. E. Prothero, 1896, I, 348.
[17] _Last Journals during the Reign of George III_, ed. A. Francis
Steuart, 1910, II, 206n.
[18] _The American Journal of Ambrose Serle ... 1776-1778_, ed. Edward H.
Tatum, Jr., San Marino, California, 1940, p. 296.
[19] Walpole, _Last Journals_, II, 117; Fox, _Speeches_, 1815, I, 116-118.
[20] _Letters_, ed. Toynbee, X, 195.
[21] _Private Letters_, I, 338.
[22] _Last Journals_, II, 115n. In a debate on the navy estimates, 2
December 1778, Temple Luttrell said of North:
Whenever the noble lord found himself closely pressed in
argument, or fact, it was his known practice to get rid of the
question by a joke. His manner was no less curious than his
matter; when he was half asleep, or seemingly quite asleep, he
collected a store of wit and humour, from Æsop, Phædrus, or
Joe Miller, or some other book equally distinguished for such
species of drollery; and, instead of reasoning, was sure to
treat the House with a laugh (_The Parliamentary History of
England ... to the Year 1803_ [compiled by William Cobbett],
1806-20, XIX, 1388).
[23] John Taylor, _Records of My Life_, 1832, I, 144.
[24] _Last Journals_, II, 206.
[25] _Altercation; Being the Substance of a Debate ... on a Motion to
Censure the Pamphlet of Anticipation_ [1778], p. 10; _The Pamphleteer_,
XIX, 1822, 310.
[26] MS. note in Horace Walpole’s copy of _Anticipation_.
[27] Thomas Moore, _Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence_, ed. Lord John
Russell, 1853-56, IV, 34.
[28] “Reminiscences.—No. IV. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, &c.,”
_Blackwood’s Magazine_, XX, 209.
[29] _The Royal Gazette_, 17 March 1779.
[30] Though Johnson had disapproved of _The Project_, he thought
_Anticipation_ “a mighty fine thing.” So Boswell told Tickell at a
dinner-party in April 1779 (_Private Papers of James Boswell from
Malahide Castle_, ed. Geoffrey Scott and F. A. Pottle, Mount Vernon,
N.Y., 1928-34, XIII, 232).
[31] XLVII, 1778, 566.
[32] Garrick, _Private Correspondence_, II, 322-323.
[33] _Biographia Dramatica_, I, 714.
[34] _Hobby-Horses. Read at Batheaston_, 1780, pp. 13-14.
[35] Ernest Law, _The History of Hampton Court Palace_, 1890-91, III,
318, 464.
[36] W. Fraser Rae, _Sheridan_, New York, 1896, I, 357.
[37] Walter Sichel, _Sheridan_, 1909, I, 442n.
[38] Clementina Black, _The Linleys of Bath_, 1911, p. 162.
[39] Thomas Moore, _Memoirs of ... Sheridan_, 2nd ed., 1825, II, 62.
[40] See Romney’s diary, as given in Humphry Ward and W. Roberts,
_Romney_, 1904, II, 157-158. Romney painted three portraits of the
second Mrs. Tickell, the best-known of which is reproduced in Sichel’s
_Sheridan_, II, facing p. 264.
[41] British Museum Add. MSS. 29,194, f. 152; 29,173, f. 44.
[42] I, 13. There is a circumstantial account of Tickell’s death and the
conduct of his widow in [William Smyth] _Memoir of Mr. Sheridan_, Leeds,
1840, pp. 53-55.
[43] _The London Magazine_, XLVII, 1778, 566.
[44] _The Croker Papers_, ed. L. J. Jennings, 1884, I, 245-246.
[Illustration: _Reduced from the original by one third_
ANTICIPATION:
Containing the Substance of
HIS M⸻Y’s
Most Gracious Speech
TO BOTH
H⸻S of P⸺L⸺T,
ON THE
Opening of the approaching SESSION,
TOGETHER
With a full and authentic Account of the DEBATE
which WILL take Place in the H⸺E of C⸻S,
on the Motion for the ADDRESS, and the AMENDMENT.
With NOTES.
“_So shall my Anticipation_
_Prevent your Discovery._”
HAMLET.
_LONDON_:
Printed for T. BECKET, the Corner of the Adelphi,
in the Strand. 1778.]
_ADVERTISEMENT._
Several reasons concurred to urge the Editor to this publication. The
critical situation of public affairs seemed to require an extraordinary
diffusion of political knowledge; yet, in the common course, but few of
the millions, who are so deeply interested in the result of parliamentary
debates, can be admitted to an audience of them. Sometimes, the Members
shut their galleries against the intrusion of any of their Constituents;
and it is always a standing order, from the opening of the session, to
prohibit the publication of their debates. Under these circumstances,
an authentic account of the first day’s debate, put forth at this date,
will clearly avoid any breach of that order, and, without exposing the
Constituents to crowding in the gallery, to furnish them with their
Representatives Speeches, taken down with the strictest fidelity, cannot
but afford them some amusement, and indeed real use. Besides, the first
day’s debate is generally a kind of outline of the debates of the whole
session; so that a critical observer, by contemplating the buds and
seedlings of this early eloquence, may calculate what degree of radical
strength they possess, how far they will expand and bloom, and whether
they are hardy enough to stand the winter.
The Editor cannot but seize this opportunity to thank those Gentlemen
who have furnished him with the _most authentic materials_ for some of
the speeches, which, they will immediately see, he has copied _verbatim_
from their manuscripts—and he sincerely hopes, their having appeared in
print _before_ they are spoken, will not deter the several Gentlemen from
delivering them with their usual appearance of _extempore_ eloquence.
November 23, 1778.
The Gentlemen trading to the East-Indies, West-Indies,
and other parts, who intend taking or sending thither any
pamphlets this season, are hereby informed, that this work is
authentic, faithful, and strictly impartial; and as the nice
and discerning eye of the British islands and settlements near
us, must feel an interest in these matters, good allowance will
be given for taking quantities.—Also the best Dutch wax, and
stationary wares.
ANTICIPATION, &c.
_Dom. Comm. Jovis. 26 Nov. die._
_Anno 19ᵒ Georgii III Regis, 1778._
Sir Francis M[olyneu]x, gentleman-usher of the black rod, having, with
the usual solemnity, at half past two o’clock, given three admonitory
raps at the door of the H[ous]e of C[ommo]ns, and being thereupon
admitted, and having proceeded towards the table, with three progressive
bows, acquainted the S[peake]r,[1] that his M[ajest]y commanded their
immediate attendance in the H[ous]e of L[or]ds, where soon after his
M[ajest]y delivered his most gracious speech to both Houses; which we
should give at length, having an accurate copy now before us, but that
many reasons concur to induce us rather to give a general sketch of it.
It is scarcely necessary to say, that respect to that great personage is
the principal of those motives: It is also universally felt, that the
merit of those speeches consists much less in the composition than in the
delivery. Besides, as an authentic _black letter_ copy of _this_ speech
will infallibly appear, we have too high a respect for our good friends
Messrs. the Hawkers and Criers of this great metropolis, to rob them of
any part of the fruits of their annual eloquence on this occasion⸺The
speech began by saying,
That the situation of public affairs induced him to call them thus early
together, that they might more fully enter into the various and important
concerns which would naturally engage their attention.
That he had reason to hope that the schemes which the natural enemies
of this country, in conjunction with their unnatural allies, had
meditated against us in the West-Indies, notwithstanding some appearance
of success, might, under Divine Providence, fail in the object of
distressing the commercial interest of his people, which, it gave him
satisfaction to observe, had hitherto continued to flourish amidst the
calamities of war, while that of the enemy had received the most material
injuries.
That he could not but behold with particular pleasure the zeal and ardour
shewn by all his subjects on this emergency, which had fully secured the
safety of this country, and convinced our enemies that every attempt
against the internal prosperity of Great Britain must prove ineffectual.
That he continued to receive the most friendly assurances of the pacific
dispositions of the other powers of Europe.
That his desire of re-establishing the general tranquility could not be
doubted; and as he had not been the first to disturb the peace, so he
should embrace the earliest opportunity of putting an end to the horrors
of war, whenever that desirable end could be effected, consistently with
the honour of his crown, and the interest of his subjects, which he
should ever be careful to preserve.
That his faithful C[o]mm[o]ns might depend on the proper officers
immediately laying before them the estimate for the expences of the
ensuing year.
That he lamented that the present situation of affairs should oblige him
to call upon his faithful subjects for any additional supplies, but
That his faithful C[o]mm[o]ns might depend on the strictest œconomy on
his part, in the application of such sums as they should judge necessary
for the public service, and he doubted not they would see the expediency
of providing for such contingencies as might arise from the continuance
of war, and the measures necessary to be taken for the re-establishment
of peace upon an honourable and permanent foundation.
It concluded with relying on the wisdom and unanimity of Parliament; on
the good conduct of his Generals and Admirals; on the valor of his Fleets
and Armies; and on the zeal and spirit of all his faithful subjects.
Upon the return of the C[ommo]ns to their House, the speech having been
read as usual from the chair, a motion for an Address, conformable to
the several sentences in the speech, and expressive of the firmness and
unanimity of the House at this important crisis, was made and seconded by
two young Members; the particular phraseology of which leading speeches
we shall not retail, it being universally admitted that the rhetoric
applied to these occasions, is not very replete with originality. Our
readers will easily imagine the proper quantity of tropes and metaphors,
apologies for inexperience, elegant timidities, graceful blushes, studied
hesitations, army safe at New-York, fleets likewise safe, individuals
enriched, perfect content at home, nothing wanting but unanimity in
council, &c. &c. &c. which ornamented and enriched these anniversary
panegyrics. We shall hasten therefore to the more material part of the
debate, which commenced by the following speech from Lord G[ranb]y[2],
proposing the amendment.
[Sidenote: Lord G[ran]by.]
_Lord G[ran]by._ Conscious of my own inability, and sinking under the
sense of my little knowledge or experience, totally unprovided with any
ideas for the present occasion, and absolutely ignorant not only of the
forms but even the modes of proceeding in this house, may I, Sir, in this
state of imbecility, be permitted to take the lead on this first and
most important day of the session? May I, Sir, all unequal to so arduous
a task, be allowed to dictate, if not to the whole house, at least to
this side of it, the proper and only constitutional method of compelling
ministers to furnish us with the means of discovering some errors in
their conduct; and to enable us to demonstrate to the nation at large
their total incapacity for filling the places which they now hold?—There
was a time, Sir, when this side of the house would not tamely acquiesce
in so dangerous a precedent as any minister’s retaining his office for
the unconstitutional duration of seven years. Have we forgot, Sir, the
great name of Pulteny? Pulteny, Sir! the virtuous Pulteny! Pulteny,
the wonder of the age! Pulteny, that steady Patriot, whose Herculean
eloquence overcame the Hydra of corruption! or have we forgot, Sir, that
inestimable character of our own times, whose virtues compelled the
admiration of this profligate age; whose memory excites the veneration
of every patriot mind? Let it not be objected that these illustrious
characters were dazzled by the splendour of a coronet: I will not answer
such frivolous remarks:—Sir, I wander from the question: Yet let me
remind this House, that those great patriots were ever foremost in taking
that part which now falls to my lot. They, Sir, were ever ready to awaken
the fears, and rouze the apprehensions, of the Country Gentlemen; and
that, Sir, is my object:—They, Sir, compelled Adm[i]n[i]str[a]t[io]n to
disclose the inmost recess of official iniquity; and that, Sir, that
is also my intention. Sir, with this view, I shall humbly move you,
that in place of the present Address, which I cannot but consider as
the selfish panegyric of Adm[i]n[i]str[a]t[io]n, immediately after the
general expressions of respect for his M[ajest]y, the following words may
be substituted, in order to our acquiring that full and comprehensive
knowledge of public affairs, which is so indispensably necessary at the
opening of this interesting and important session of P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt.
“Your faithful C[o]mm[o]ns, deeply impressed with a sense of your
M[ajest]y’s unwearied anxiety to promote the dignity and glory of Great
Britain, cannot but lament the many unhappy circumstances which have
conspired to disturb your M[ajest]y’s happiness, and to prejudice the
interests and honour of this country. When we find that the most liberal
supplies for our naval equipments have as yet produced none of those
happy effects which might reasonably have been expected to be derived
from so powerful an armament, particularly under the direction of an
officer of experienced conduct and courage, we cannot but express our
serious apprehensions of some fatal misconduct, either on the part of
Administration, by forming indecisive and contradictory instructions
for the direction of the Navy, or, in the particular department for
naval affairs, of some misapplication of those liberal supplies, which,
if wisely and faithfully applied, could not have failed, under divine
providence, and your M[ajest]y’s wisdom, of obtaining the most salutary
effects.
For these reasons, we, your M[ajest]y’s most faithful C[o]mm[o]ns, most
humbly intreat your M[ajest]y to order the proper Officers to lay before
the House, copies of the secret instructions for the conduct of the Fleet
commanded by Admiral K[e]pp[e]l—estimates of the quantity of ballast used
in the several ships of the division of the fleet commanded by Admiral
K[e]pp[e]l—bills of parcel of the number of square yards of sail-cloth,
together with samples of ditto, intended to be used in the division of
the Fleet commanded by Vice Admiral Sir H[u]gh P[a]ll[i]s[e]r—succinct
accounts of the quota of biscuits, and ratio of salt-beef distributed
in the Fleet—faithful transcripts of the several Log-Books of each
vessel—abstracts of all letters, notes, and messages that passed and
repassed, off Ushant, between the Admirals and Ph[i]l[i]p St[e]v[e]ns,
Esq. during the course of last summer—and, finally, minute copies of all
accounts unsettled or passed, open or closed, paid or unpaid, between
the Commissioners of the Navy, and all sorts of Manufacturers, Sailors,
Contractors, &c. &c. &c. employed by them for these twenty years last
past⸺It is from a minute investigation of these important papers, that
your M[ajest]y’s most faithful C[o]mm[o]ns can alone derive just grounds
for censure or exculpation. And, however laborious this investigation
may prove, we, your M[ajest]y’s most faithful C[o]mm[o]ns, beg leave to
assure your M[ajest]y, we shall most readily devote our utmost attention
to so salutary a study, in order to promote a quick dispatch of public
business at this momentous and aweful crisis, and to give vigour and
effect to those measures which your M[ajest]y, in your great wisdom,
may think necessary to secure the safety, interest, and honour of Great
Britain.”
Such, Sir, is the amendment which I have the honour to offer to the
consideration of this house. It will immediately strike you, Sir, that
in the accounts which I propose to have submitted to the investigation
of P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt, I have avoided asking for one scrap of paper that
is not absolutely necessary to be seen and thoroughly studied by the
House. Should it, however, appear necessary to Gentlemen to _add_ to the
list of these official documents, I am sure I shall not oppose such an
improvement to the motion, to whatever quantity it may extend.
[Sidenote: Mr. G[eor]g[e] S[u]tt[o]n.]
Mr. _G[eo]rg[e] S[u]tt[o]n_ seconded the motion for the amendment,
beginning with a similar acknowledgement of his incapacity, his
inexperience and ignorance of P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt[a]ry affairs; declining
therefore to enter into any further argument, the subject having been
discussed in so full and able a manner by his most noble cousin.
[Sidenote: Mr. W[e]lb[o]re Ell[i]s.]
Mr. _W[e]lb[o]re Ell[i]s_, in reply, threw out many sagacious and
novel observations. He said that he highly commended the caution and
circumspection of the noble Lord, but, that in his opinion, a more proper
time would arrive, about six months after Christmas, for entering into
the details proposed by the Amendment; as, at that period, Administration
would certainly have more leisure for furnishing the papers now called
for.
He very properly observed, that selecting these few curious articles of
political intelligence from a variety of miscellaneous papers, would
require some short time, together with no small degree of discernment,
not to mention several thousands of extra clerks. He said, he had taken
the trouble to make a most serious investigation into the Journals, the
Votes, the Debates, and all the P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt[a]ry Records of this
country; and he was free to say, that notwithstanding it might at first
appear rather a novel idea, yet it was his opinion, that _The Address_ on
the first day was a matter of compliment. Nay, touching the matter before
him, (and weighty and powerful indeed it was) after the most mature and
serious deliberation, daily and nightly, he would for once venture to
hazard a rhetorical, a figurative expression, to wit, that the Address
was an eccho, as it were, a complimentary eccho, of his M[ajest]y’s most
gracious speech.—He hinted, that, if any Gentleman wished for particular
enquiries, he would, as an old Member, long conversant with the forms
of the House, tell him, that certainly a Committee might be appointed
to carry on any public enquiry; and he believed such Committees were
not unfrequent.—And here he remarked, that, from all his researches, it
appeared to him, that the constitution of this country was of a triple
nature—K[i]ng—L[o]rds—and C[o]mm[o]ns—that, these three opposite and
repelling powers, reciprocally ballanced and counteracted each other; at
the same time that they contributed to the proportion and harmony of the
whole.—He took occasion to observe, that freedom of Debate was clearly
a P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt[a]ry privilege, and he would pledge himself to prove
that every Member in that House was a representative of his constituents.
For these reasons, he concluded with dissenting from the Amendment as
trite, abstruse, dangerous, and frivolous.
[Sidenote: D[a]v[i]d H[a]rtly, Esq.]
_D[a]v[i]d H[a]rtly_, Esq.[3] observed, that these were no times for
flattery and empty adulation.—For his part, he should enter at large into
the rise and origin of all Colonies, ancient and modern, into the history
of Taxation, and its effects on every state that had exercised it over
its colonies; and then review the cause, commencement, and conduct of
the whole American war. He felt how arduous, how complicated a task this
must prove to himself, and how difficult for the House to understand.
That, to lessen that difficulty, both to the House and to himself, he
would adopt the most logical method to give clearness and perspicuity
to such a multitude and diversity of ideas; and for that purpose, he
begged Gentlemen to take notice, that he should divide his speech into
four and twenty grand divisions, each of which should contain as many
subdivisions, which subdivisions should also be separately discussed in
equal number of sections, each section to be split also into the same
number of heads; so that with grand divisions, subdivisions, sections,
and heads, the number of distinct propositions would amount to several
thousands; but that Gentlemen, by attending closely, and correctly taking
down the number of any particular argument, should have an immediate
explicit answer to any query touching that individual number: and he
flattered himself this numerical logic and arithmetic of eloquence would
greatly tend to clarify their understandings.
To follow this gentleman thro’ even one of his grand divisions, was a
task much beyond the utmost rapidity of a short-hand writer. Indeed the
noise from all parts of the house was so excessive, during the several
hours which he engrossed in this laborious harangue, that it was totally
impossible to catch up any thing beyond the mutilated fragments, and
ruins of his oratory. At length however the house sunk into a sudden
calm, upon the disclosure of a fact, which seemed to startle even the
wildest zealots of faction.—For, after every other argument was exhausted
to so little purpose, inflamed by disappointment, and hurried, as we
are willing to suppose, by the violence of patriotism, the Honourable
Gentleman avowed to the House, that one of his grounds for denouncing
ruin to his country was _his private knowledge of DR. FRANKLYN’S
sentiments on that head_.[4] “Dr. Franklyn (he exclaimed) the Cromwell
of his age, Dr. Franklyn, Ambassador Plenipotentiary from America to
France, is my most intimate and most cordial friend!”⸺He went on by
declaring, he had passed great part of the summer at Paris, with Dr.
Franklyn, in the most unreserved communication of sentiments and facts;
and he concluded with repeating, as the joint result of his own and Dr.
Franklin’s deliberation, that the glory of England was destroyed for
ever!⸺This extraordinary confession produced however no violent effect.
Ministers seemed to receive it with a contemptuous pity, not unmingled
with ridicule,[5] when _Mr. W[ilke]s_, finding the little success of
serious treason, rose, and indulged himself in the more ludicrous stile
of it.
[Sidenote: Mr. W[ilke]s.]
_Mr. W[ilke]s_[6] adverted with some degree of humour to the inference
of victory and triumph which might be deduced from the return of our
Generals and our Admirals, and one of our commissioners too. They found
(he said) that being on the spot interrupted their manœuvres, and he
supposed they were come three thousand miles off to act _cooly_. That,
the object they were sent to accomplish was confessedly a great one;
and it is well known, that objects of a certain magnitude are best
contemplated at a distance. Probably, their optics were too tender to
distinguish with accuracy amidst the smoak and confusion incident to
actual engagements; or perhaps, they reflected on the more imminent
dangers of domestic invasion, and hastened home from pure patriotism
to guard their native country.—At any rate, he must compliment their
discernment in pursuing a line of conduct, which could not fail of
conciliating the good opinion and sympathetic regard of the Noble Lord,
who presided in the American department. If therefore, Mr. Speaker,
by any miraculous change, I were, this day, to become the Advocate
of Administration, I should mark the inutility of recurring to the
written evidence, which the Amendment calls for, at a moment when we
are so copiously provided with _vivâ voce_ testimony. Yet, Sir, I do
not think, upon reflexion, that Ministers will adopt this ground for
rejecting the noble Lord’s Amendment. They, Sir, will more boldly tell
you—you shall have neither,—for, in these times, it is the fashion for
all modern Statesmen, first to tell their own story, and then protest
solemnly against being cross-examined—_or directly, or indirectly,
answering question, query, or otherwise_. I believe I am accurate in my
quotation.—I am not indeed surprized at these declarations of obstinate
silence—this is Scottish policy—the example was set by my good old
friend, the E[a]rl of B[u]te—for therein I am orthodox in my faith, that
the Son is equal to the Father; and I am sure I may add with Athanasian
zeal, the father is incomprehensible, and the Son is incomprehensible,
yet there are not two incomprehensibles, but one incomprehensible.
(Here a confused cry of order, and the Chaplain reprimanded for
laughing.)
There is indeed one North Briton of whom I entertain a better hope.—He
seems to have caught that itch for liberty, which, to our great wonder,
broke out in the Highlands last summer. He, Sir, even in the character
of his M[ajest]y’s Commissi[o]ner, solicited the intimacy of _General
Washington_. But indeed, Sir, if ever a Scotchman can be suspected of
loving liberty, it is not when he has recently become a convert to
Administration: _Washington_ therefore sent his Excellency, the worthy
Commissioner, a flat refusal.—Mr. _Laurens_ too refused his Excellency
the hearing he so generously solicited by imploring Congress, “_not to
follow the example of Br[i]t[ai]n in the hour of her insolence_;” the
_hearing_ was however refused, nay even the “_sight of the country_,”
and “_the sight of its worthy patriots_” was peremptorily refused. The
Americans, Sir, think that a Scotchman has neither eyes nor ears for
liberty, or, at least, they distrusted the capacity of his Excellency’s
organs for such an object.—I have a letter, Sir, in my pocket from my
honest friend Ethan Allen; I would read it, but I am sure you won’t let
me: He knows I am fond of scripture quotations, and tells me Congress
would have given your Scotch commissioner this _hearing_, but they knew
“he was like unto the deaf adder, who regardeth not the voice of the
charmer.”
Let me then trouble his Excellency with one question; who was it
suggested this secret correspondence with the enemy? was it not the
Scottish secretary of this wise commission, Dr. Adam Ferguson? It must
have been one of Sir John Dalrymple’s associates in literature. The
Scotch, if they can get no Englishman to act, as they pretend to say the
great Sidney did, will make even their own countrymen treacherous in one
age, to furnish some literary assassin of the next with the foul vouchers
of treachery and baseness. At all events, Sir, I shall heartily give my
vote for the amendment, as the only means to convict the M[i]n[i]stry of
what I know they are guilty, weakness, incapacity, ignorance, obstinacy,
baseness, and treachery.
[Sidenote: Governor J[o]hns[o]n.]
_Governor J[o]hns[o]n_[7] now rose, and said every thing that a Gentleman
in his melancholly situation could be supposed to urge. Spoke much of
the want of candour in putting a false construction on his actions,
which he could assure the House, upon his honour, were all dictated by
the best intentions; that he should not undertake to enter into a full
defence of his conduct at present, as it was a very delicate business,
and turned upon a very nice chain of circumstances. One part of the
charges against him he would slightly touch upon, his letters, and what
he supposed was meant to be hinted at, his attempts of bribery. That
the artful policy of France had made it necessary for him to parry her
attacks by similar weapons; that he believed it was felt and would be
admitted by all parts of that House, that there is no greater spring of
public actions, in all political assemblies, than _self-interest_. That
he felt himself justified in his own mind for every step he had taken,
for he would venture to affirm, that in every negociation true wisdom
and sound policy justified the moral fitness of secret articles, and
the honourable expediency of powerful temptations. As to the failure of
success, on the part of the commissioners, various causes had concurred
to occasion it. They were sent to treat of peace with a retreating army.
Philadelphia, the chief residence of the moderate men, and most friendly
to their negociation, was evacuated by the army, on the Commissioners
arrival. A little after they had got to New-York, Mons. D’Estaign was
upon the coast. These circumstances gave spirits to a declining cause;
and America, _in this hour of her insolence_, refused to treat, unless
her independence was specifically acknowledged.
What followed afterwards is a very serious business, indeed; but I trust
I shall be pardoned by a noble Lord opposite to me, high in character,
and in the esteem of his country, if I freely say, as my opinion, that
Monsieur D’Estaign’s fleet ought to have been attacked by the Br[i]t[i]sh
at Rhode-Island, as soon as the French came out of the harbour to fight
them. And I will further say, considering the spirit, the gallantry,
and the heroism of the British Seamen, the inequality of the force of
the fleets was not sufficient to justify the not attacking the French
fleet, without waiting a length of time to gain the weather guage, and
trusting so long as the Engl[i]sh fleet did there to an unruly element.
Sir, in the actions in the West-Indies, between the English and French
fleets, last war, where the former were greatly inferior both in number
and weight of metal, the French were beat off and obliged to fly for
it. So, in the case of the Monmouth, the Dorsetshire, and several other
instances, inferiority in the outset of the contest proved victorious in
the end. I will not, however, dwell upon matters which merely depend upon
opinion, and upon which the best officer in the world may be mistaken.
But, Sir, after the tempest at Rhode-Island, when the Noble Lord returned
to New-York to refit, was not time lost? the very time that might have
been employed in separating D’Estaign from Boston harbour? I might say,
Sir, in the defeat of D’Estaign; for, after the arrival of some of
B[y]r[o]n’s squadron, the Noble Lord was superior to him.⸺It is a very
unpleasant task to speak out, but I cannot avoid giving my opinion as
a seaman, and as one upon the spot, acquainted with the delays in this
business.
Upon the whole, Sir, my opinion, in a very few words is this: The violent
and impolitic measures of the M[i]n[i]stry of this country first lost
America⸺the Br[i]t[i]sh army might have regained it⸺and our fleet has
lost more than one opportunity of crushing that of France, upon which
American resistance chiefly depended for protection and support.
[Sidenote: Lord H[o]we.]
_Lord H[o]we_ and _Mr. R[i]gby_ now rose; but the house appearing
inclined to give the former an immediate opportunity to reply, Mr.
R[i]gby sat down, and Lord H[o]we, in very modest yet pointed terms,
remarked on the unfairness which, he must say, the Honourable Gentleman
who spoke last, had discovered both in the design and manner of his
speech. That, first, to avoid entering into the motives and principles of
his own conduct, as being more proper objects for a particular committee
of enquiry, and then to launch out into vague and desultory accusations
of any other person, was inconsistent, and, he was sorry to add,
illiberal. That whatever prejudices those reflections were intended to
create against his conduct, he would not then interrupt the business of
the day, and the more general subjects of the present debate, but trust
to the candour of the house for suspending their opinion, until the whole
of his conduct might be minutely investigated by a committee appointed
for that purpose; which committee, he himself should be the first man in
that house to solicit, nay demand.
[Sidenote: Mr. R[i]gby.]
_Mr. R[i]gby._⸺I should not, Sir, have troubled the house on this first
day, but that I felt it the indispensable duty of private friendship,
to express my feelings on the happy return of our worthy Commissioner,
who has given you, Sir, so full and satisfactory an account both of his
principles and conduct.⸺I shall not trouble you long, Sir; I rise only
for that purpose.⸺I am sure there is no Gentleman in this house, who
more heartily congratulates the worthy Commissioner on his unembarrassed
countenance and his good looks. He certainly has passed the summer very
profitably—the voyage seems to have improved his stock of spirits—I
think, I never saw him appear to more advantage—I own, however, I
sincerely regret the unpoliteness of his American friends. After such
condescending invitations of himself, it was not very civil of those
Gentlemen to send excuses—If he had been admitted to their society, I
have no manner of doubt of the wonderful effects his eloquence would have
wrought. Even if they had allowed him a sight of the country, a man of
his taste would have brought us home some curious American memoirs: but,
alas! he was not only disappointed in that wish, but in one of a still
gentler kind. I mean, Sir, a _Flirtation Treaty_, which he _attempted_,
to negotiate with a celebrated female politician, the _Messalina of
Congress_. I say attempted, Sir; for unfortunately even there too his
Excellency met with as cold a reception. Unfortunately! for, had the Lady
indulged him with a _hearing_, or even a _sight_, what surer line to lay
the foundation of a more lasting connection? But, in short, Sir, whether
from fate or insufficiency, the affair dropt, and the _Flirtation Treaty_
fell to the ground⸺ ⸺Sir, I trouble the house very seldom, and with as
few words as possible⸺my opinion continues to be what it invariably
has been, with respect to America—this country may be deprived of its
interests, its dignity, and its honour; but, as I never can give my
assent to a voluntary surrender of them, I most heartily agree in the
support which the address proposes to afford to his M[ajest]y.
[Sidenote: Mr. T. T[o]wns[e]nd.]
Mr. _T. T[o]wns[e]nd_ rose, and with great vehemence arraigned the levity
of the Right Honourable Gentleman who spoke before him; he thought it
highly indecent, at this important crisis, when the very existence of
this country is at stake, that any Gentleman should endeavour to raise
a laugh, and turn the momentous deliberations of that day into ridicule.
Under such circumstances, in his opinion, jocularity was flagitious, and
wit became blasphemy. He had, himself, sat in three P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nts,
and he appealed to the candour of that house, whether in that length
of time he had once raised a laugh, or on any occasion intentionally
distorted the muscles of any Honourable Member? “No Sir, the true
design of our meeting here, is for far other purposes than those of
calling forth the risibility of Honourable Gentlemen: a risibility at
any time highly improper for this house, but particularly so at this
tremendous, this disgraceful moment.—It is with the highest astonishment
that I now see Gentlemen shifting their places, as if already tired of
public business, or afraid to look into the deplorable and calamitous
situation of this country: nay, so great is their inattention to their
duty in P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt, that, upon my rising, I find the house almost
cleared—where are the Members?—I am afraid—at dinner! Is this a time for
revelling in taverns, when the dignity of the Imperial Crown of this
country is violated, and much harm done to our merchants?—Is this a time
for revelling, when the glory of Britannia, Sir, I say, is sullied, and
when, Sir, the French are riding on your narrow seas.”⸺He then entered
into a copious detail of the blunders of Administration, with respect to
Falkland’s Islands, the Middlesex Election, Corsica, and the massacre in
St. George’s Fields, Gibraltar, and Mr. Horne’s imprisonment; together
with cursory observations on the illegality of impressing, the bad policy
of Lotteries, the fatal example of the Justitia, and the tremendous
perils to this devoted country from the frequent exhibition of the
Beggar’s Opera.⸺At length, returning a little closer to the question, he
again animadverted on the surprising inattention of the House: “Yet Sir,
(he exclaimed) before I sit down let me ask Ministers a few questions—I
do not expect any answer from them, yet I will ask them⸺Is Dominica the
only one of our West India Islands now in the possession of France?
Are we to go on for ever with the American war?—Who are our allies?—Is
Omiah to pay us another visit?—Where is Sir Harry Cl[i]nt[o]n?⸺How is
the Czarina affected?—What will D’Estaign do after Christmas?⸺Where will
the Brest fleet be next summer?⸺If Ministers will not, and I know they
dare not, answer these questions, then Sir, how, in God’s name, can
they refuse the papers called for by the noble Lord’s Amendment? From
those papers, I pledge myself to the house, the whole of these nefarious
proceedings will be brought to light—discouraged, as I well might be,
from again pledging my person, (having been the constant and unredeemed
pledge of this House, for one thing or another, for these one and
twenty years last past,) I repeat it, Sir, I will pledge the reversion
of myself, that these papers will furnish us with all necessary and
constitutional information.—And, for these reasons, Sir, the Amendment
meets with my most hearty concurrence.”
[Sidenote: Mr. V[y]n[e]r.]
Mr. _V[y]n[e]r_ professed himself to be one of the independant Country
Gentlemen, and took occasion to inform the house, that five Indiamen
arrived in the River Thames about six weeks ago.—He said he embraced
this earliest opportunity to repeat his offer of fifteen shillings in
the pound, if Ministers would but seriously go on with the war, which,
for his part, he now considered in a new point of view—for, as a great
statesman had once boasted to have conquered, in his time, America in
Germany, so he would hope and believe, that we, in our days, might
conquer France in America.—And here, from regretting the loss of that
great statesman, he fell into a train of melancholy thoughts, which led
him insensibly to a pathetic eulogy on the memory of his dear departed
friend, the well-known Mr. _Van_.—“A long course of congenial studies (he
exclaimed, with torrents of tears and frequent sobs) had entwined our
hearts in political sympathy—we had but one idea between us!—Yes, Sir, I
repeat it, but one—Well therefore may I say with the Poet,
In infancy our hopes and fears
Were to each other known,
And friendship in our riper years,
Had twined our hearts in one.”
Here he broke off, oppressed with a flood of tears, while a confused
noise of _encore_ and _order_ resounded from several parts of the
house. At length, when the uproar began to subside, and Gentlemen became
collected enough to proceed on business,
[Sidenote: Hon. T. L[u]ttr[e]l.]
_Hon. T. L[uttre]l_ rose, and with great solemnity, addressed himself to
the chair in the following words:⸺Notwithstanding the general silence,
which, I find, it is the fashion for Ministers of this day not only to
hold themselves, but likewise to encourage in others, on the important
subject of maritime affairs, I cannot, Sir, acquiesce in so culpable a
silence, nor content myself with sitting still, until the close of the
debate, to be numbered with the tacit votes in its disfavour. Sir, the
Navy, I have ever considered not only as the true and constitutional
safe-guard of this insular territory, but as the very spirit and soul of
all traffic, the quintessence of merchandize, and indeed, I may say, the
palladium of commerce. With this view, Sir, my studies have ever tended
to the investigation of the origin of that stupendous piece of mechanism,
a ship.⸺Noah, Sir, was, in my opinion, the first circumnavigator—(I beg
to be understood, I mean no reflection on the memory of Sir Francis
Drake)—he was therefore, Sir, justly entitled to the highest situation
in the naval department of that early period—take him for all in all, we
shall not look upon his like again—though, in truth, there are traits
in his character not totally dissimilar to some leading features of the
noble Earl who is now at the head of that department—But it is not for me
to draw the parallel.