That no prosecution followed was due perhaps to that dread of ridicule
which has often tempered the severity of the law. 'The Hurgolen Branard,
who in the former session was Pretor of Mildendo,' might well have been
unwilling to prove that he was Sir John Barnard, late Lord Mayor of
London.
Johnson, it should seem, revised some of the earliest _Debates_. In a
letter to Cave which cannot have been written later than September 1738,
he mentions the alterations that he had made (_ante_, p. 136). The more
they were written by him, the less authentic did they become, for he was
not one of those 'fellows who thrust themselves into the gallery of the
House.' His employer, Cave, if we can trust his own evidence, had been
in the habit of going there and taking notes with a pencil (_Parl.
Hist_. xiv. 60). But Johnson, Hawkins says (_Life_, p. 122), 'never was
within the walls of either House.' According to Murphy (_Life_, p. 44),
he had been inside the House of Commons once. Be this as it may, in the
end the _Debates_ were composed by him alone (_ante_, p. 118). From that
time they must no longer be looked upon as authentic records, in spite
of the assertions of the Editor of the _Parl. Hist_. (xi. Preface).
Johnson told Boswell (_ante_, p. 118) 'that sometimes he had nothing
more communicated to him than the names of the several speakers, and the
part which they had taken in the debate;' sometimes 'he had scanty notes
furnished by persons employed to attend in both Houses of Parliament.'
Often, his Debates were written 'from no materials at all--the mere
coinage of his own imagination' (_post_, under Dec. 9, 1784).
'He never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity. Three columns
of the _Magazine_ in an hour was no uncommon effort, which was faster
than most persons could have transcribed that quantity' (_ib_.).
According to Hawkins (_Life_, p. 99), 'His practice was to shut himself
up in a room assigned to him at St. John's Gate, to which he would not
suffer any one to approach, except the compositor or Cave's boy for
matter, which, as fast as he composed it, he tumbled out at the door.'
From Murphy we get the following curious story:--
'That Johnson was the author of the debates during that period [Nov,
1740 to Feb. 1743] was not generally known; but the secret transpired
several years afterwards, and was avowed by himself on the following
occasion:--Mr. Wedderburne (now Lord Loughborough), Dr. Johnson, Dr.
Francis (the translator of _Horace_), the present writer, and others
dined with the late Mr. Foote. An important debate towards the end of
Sir Robert Walpole's administration being mentioned, Dr. Francis
observed, "that Mr. Pitt's speech on that occasion was the best he had
ever read." He added, "that he had employed eight years of his life in
the study of Demosthenes, and finished a translation of that celebrated
orator, with all the decorations of style and language within the reach
of his capacity; but he had met with nothing equal to the speech above
mentioned." Many of the company remembered the debate; and some passages
were cited with the approbation and applause of all present. During the
ardour of conversation, Johnson remained silent. As soon as the warmth
of praise subsided, he opened with these words:--"That speech I wrote in
a garret in Exeter Street." The company was struck with astonishment.
After staring at each other in silent amaze, Dr. Francis asked how that
speech could be written by him? "Sir," said Johnson, "I wrote it in
Exeter Street. I never had been in the gallery of the House of Commons
but once. Cave had interest with the door-keepers. He, and the persons
employed under him, gained admittance: they brought away the subject of
discussion, the names of the speakers, the side they took, and the order
in which they rose, together with notes of the arguments advanced in the
course of the debate. The whole was afterwards communicated to me, and I
composed the speeches in the form which they now have in the
Parliamentary Debates." To this discovery Dr. Francis made
answer:--"Then, sir, you have exceeded Demosthenes himself, for to say
that you have exceeded Francis's _Demosthenes_, would be saying
nothing." The rest of the company bestowed lavish encomiums on Johnson:
one, in particular, praised his impartiality; observing, that he dealt
out reason and eloquence with an equal hand to both parties. "That is
not quite true," said Johnson; "I saved appearances tolerably well, but
I took care that the WHIG DOGS should not have the best of it."'
Murphy's _Life of Johnson_, p. 343.
Murphy, we must not forget, wrote from memory, for there is no reason to
think that he kept notes. That his memory cannot altogether be trusted
has been shown by Boswell (_ante_, p. 391, note 4). This dinner with
Foote must have taken place at least nineteen years before this account
was published, for so many years had Dr. Francis been dead. At the time
when Johnson was living in Exeter-street he was not engaged on the
magazine. Nevertheless the main facts may be true enough. Johnson
himself told Boswell (_post_, May 13, 1778) that in Lord Chesterfield's
_Miscellaneous Works_ (ii. 319) there were two speeches ascribed to
Chesterfield which he had himself entirely written. Horace Walpole
(_Letters_, i. 147) complained that the published report of his own
first speech 'did not contain one sentence of the true one.' Johnson, in
his preface to the _Literary Magazine_ of 1756, seems to confess what he
had done, unless, indeed, he was altogether making himself the mere
mouth-piece of the publisher. He says:--'We shall not attempt to give
any regular series of debates, or to amuse our readers with senatorial
rhetorick. The speeches inserted in other papers have been long known to
be fictitious, and produced sometimes by men who never heard the debate,
nor had any authentick information. We have no design to impose thus
grossly on our readers.' (_Works_, v. 363.)
The secret that Johnson wrote these _Debates_ was indeed well kept. He
seems to be aimed at in a question that was put to Cave in his
examination before the House of Lords in 1747. 'Being asked "if he ever
had any person whom he kept in pay to make speeches for him," he said,
"he never had."' (_Parl. Hist_. xiv. 60.) Herein he lied in order, no
doubt, to screen Johnson. Forty-four years later Horace Walpole wrote
(_Letters_, ix. 319), 'I never knew Johnson wrote the speeches in the
_Gentleman's Magazine_ till he died.' Johnson told Boswell 'that as soon
as he found that they were thought genuine he determined that he would
write no more of them, "for he would not be accessory to the propagation
of falsehood."' (_Ante_, p. 152.) One of his _Debates_ was translated
into French, German, and Spanish (_Gent. Mag_. xiii. 59), and, no doubt,
was accepted abroad as authentic. When he learnt this his conscience
might well have received a shock. That it did receive a shock seems
almost capable of proof. It was in the number of the _Magazine_ for
February, 1743--at the beginning of March, that is to say--that the fact
of these foreign translations was made known. The last Debate that
Johnson wrote was for the 22nd day of February in that year. In 1740,
1741, and 1742, he had worked steadily at his _Debates_. The beginning
of 1743 found him no less busy. His task suddenly came to an end. Among
foreign nations his speeches were read as the very words of English
statesmen. To the propagation of such a falsehood as this he would no
longer be accessory. Fifteen years later Smollett quoted them as if they
were genuine (_History of England_, iii. 73). Here, however, Johnson's
conscience was void of offence; for 'he had cautioned him not to rely on
them, for that they were not authentic.' (Hawkins, _Life_, p. 129.)
That they should generally have passed current shews how unacquainted
people at that time were with real debating. Even if we had not
Johnson's own statement, both from external and internal evidence we
could have known that they were for the most part 'the mere coinage of
his imagination.' They do not read like speeches that had ever been
spoken. 'None of them,' Mr. Flood said, 'were at all like real debates'
(_post_, under March 30, 1771). They are commonly formed of general
statements which suit any one speaker just as well as any other. The
scantier were the notes that were given him by those who had heard the
debate, the more he had to draw on his imagination. But his was an
imagination which supplied him with what was general much more readily
than with what was particular. Had De Foe been the composer he would
have scattered over each speech the most ingenious and probable matters
of detail, but De Foe and Johnson were wide as the poles asunder.
Neither had Johnson any dramatic power. His parliamentary speakers have
scarcely more variety than the characters in _Irene_. Unless he had been
a constant frequenter of the galleries of the two Houses, he could not
have acquired any knowledge of the style and the peculiarities of the
different members. Nay, even of their modes of thinking and their
sentiments he could have gained but the most general notions. Of
debating he knew nothing. It was the set speeches in _Livy_ and the old
historians that he took as his models. In his orations there is very
little of 'the tart reply;' there is, indeed, scarcely any examination
of an adversary's arguments. So general are the speeches that the order
in which they are given might very often without inconvenience be
changed. They are like a series of leading articles on both sides of the
question, but all written by one man. Johnson is constantly shifting his
character, and, like Falstaff and the Prince, playing first his own part
and then his opponent's. It is wonderful how well he preserves his
impartiality, though he does 'take care that the Whig dogs should not
have the best of it.'
He not only took the greatest liberties in his reports, but he often
took them openly. Thus an army bill was debated in committee on Dec. 10,
1740, and again the following day on the report in the full House. 'As
in these two debates,' he writes, 'the arguments were the same, Mr.
Gulliver has thrown them into one to prevent unnecessary repetitions.'
(_Gent. Mag_. Dec. 1742, p. 676.) In each House during the winter of
1742-3 there was a debate on taking the Hanoverian troops into pay. The
debate in the Lords was spread over five numbers of the _Magazine_ in
the following summer and autumn. It was not till the spring of 1744 that
the turn of the Commons came, and then they were treated somewhat
scurvily. 'This debate,' says the reporter, who was Johnson, 'we thought
it necessary to contract by the omission of those arguments which were
fully discussed in the House of Hurgoes, and of those speakers who
produced them, lest we should disgust our readers by tedious
repetitions.' (_Ib_. xiv. 125.) Many of these debates have been reported
somewhat briefly by Bishop (afterwards Archbishop) Seeker. To follow his
account requires an accurate knowledge of the times, whereas Johnson's
rhetorick for the most part is easily understood even by one very
ignorant of the history of the first two Georges. Much of it might have
been spoken on almost any occasion, for or against almost any minister.
It is true that we here and there find such a correspondence between the
two reports as shews that Johnson, as he has himself told us, was at
times furnished with some information. But, on the other hand, we can no
less clearly see that he was often drawing solely on his imagination.
Frequently there is but the slightest agreement between the reports
given by the two men of the same speeches. Of this a good instance is
afforded by Lord Carteret's speech of Feb. 13, 1741. According to
Johnson 'the Hurgo Quadrert began in this manner':--
'As the motion which I am about to make is of the highest importance and
of the most extensive consequences; as it cannot but meet with all the
opposition which the prejudices of some and the interest of others can
raise against it; as it must have the whole force of ministerial
influence to encounter without any assistance but from justice and
reason, I hope to be excused by your Lordships for spending some time in
endeavouring to shew that it wants no other support; that it is not
founded upon doubtful suspicions but upon uncontestable facts,' and so
on for eight more lines. (_Gent. Mag_. xi. 339).
The Bishop's note begins as follows:--
'CARTERET. I am glad to see the House so full. The honour of the nation
is at stake. And the oldest man hath not known such circumstances as we
are in. When storms rise you must see what pilots you have, and take
methods to make the nation easy. I shall (1) go through the foreign
transactions of several years; (2) The domestic; (3) Prove that what I
am about to propose is a parliamentary method.' (_Parl. Hist_. xi.
1047.)
Still more striking is the difference in the two reports of a speech by
Lord Talbot on May 25, 1742. According to the _Gent. Mag_. xii. 519,
'the Hurgo Toblat spoke to this effect':--
'So high is my veneration for this great assembly that it is never
without the utmost efforts of resolution that I can prevail upon myself
to give my sentiments upon any question that is the subject of debate,
however strong may be my conviction, or however ardent my zeal.'
The Bishop makes him say:--
'I rise up only to give time to others to consider how they will carry
on the debate.' (_Parl. Hist_. xii. 646.)
On Feb. 13, 1741, the same Lord, being called to order for saying that
there were Lords who were influenced by a place, exclaimed, according to
the Bishop, '"By the eternal G--d, I will defend my cause everywhere."
But Lords calling to order, he recollected himself and made an excuse.'
(_Parl. Hist_. xi. 1063). In the _Gent. Mag_. xi. 4l9, 'the Hurgo Toblat
resumed:--"My Lords, whether anything has escaped from me that deserves
such severe animadversions your Lordships must decide."'
Once at least in Johnson's reports a speech is given to the wrong
member. In the debate on the Gin Bill on Feb. 22, 1743 (_Gent. Mag_.
xiii. 696), though the Bishop's notes show that he did not speak, yet a
long speech is put into his mouth. It was the Earl of Sandwich who had
spoken at this turn of the debate. The editor of the _Parl. Hist_. (xii.
1398), without even notifying the change, coolly transfers the speech
from the 'decent' Seeker[1466], who was afterwards Primate, to the
grossly licentious Earl. A transference such as this is, however, but of
little moment. For the most part the speeches would be scarcely less
lifelike, if all on one side were assigned to some nameless Whig, and all
on the other side to some nameless Tory. It is nevertheless true that
here and there are to be found passages which no doubt really fell from
the speaker in whose mouth they are put. They mention some fact or
contain some allusion which could not otherwise have been known by
Johnson. Even if we had not Cave's word for it, we might have inferred
that now and then a member was himself his own reporter. Thus in the
_Gent. Mag_. for February 1744 (p. 68) we find a speech by Sir John St.
Aubyn that had appeared eight months earlier in the very same words in
the _London Magazine_. That Johnson copied a rival publication is most
unlikely--impossible, I might say. St. Aubyn, I conjecture, sent a copy
of his speech to both editors. In the _Gent. Mag_. for April 1743 (p.
184), a speech by Lord Percival on Dec. 10, 1742, is reported apparently
at full length. The debate itself was not published till the spring of
1744, when the reader is referred for this speech to the back number in
which it had already been inserted. (_Ib_. xiv. 123).
The _London Magazine_ generally gave the earlier report; it was,
however, twitted by its rival with its inaccuracy. In one debate, it was
said, 'it had introduced instead of twenty speakers but six, and those
in a very confused manner. It had attributed to Caecilius words
remembered by the whole audience to be spoken by M. Agrippa.' (_Gent.
Mag_. xii. 512). The report of the debate of Feb. 13, 1741, in the
_London Magazine_ fills more than twenty-two columns of the _Parl.
Hist_. (xi. 1130) with a speech by Lord Bathurst. That he did speak is
shewn by Secker (_ib_. p. 1062). No mention of him is made, however, in
the report in the _Gent. Mag_. (xi. 339). But, on the other hand, it
reports eleven speakers, while the _London Magazine_ gives but five.
Secker shows that there were nineteen. Though the _London Magazine_ was
generally earlier in publishing the debates, it does not therefore
follow that Johnson had seen their reports when he wrote his. His may
have been kept back by Cave's timidity for some months even after they
had been set up in type. In the staleness of the debate there was some
safeguard against a parliamentary prosecution.
Mr. Croker maintains (Croker's _Boswell_, p. 44) that Johnson wrote the
_Debates_ from the time (June 1738) that they assumed the _Lilliputian_
title till 1744. In this he is certainly wrong. Even if we had not
Johnson's own statement, from the style of the earlier _Debates_ we
could have seen that they were not written by him. No doubt we come
across numerous traces of his work; but this we should have expected.
Boswell tells us that Guthrie's reports were sent to Johnson for
revision (_ante_, p. 118). Nay, even a whole speech now and then may be
from his hand. It is very likely that he wrote, for instance, the
_Debate_ on buttons and button-holes (_Gent. Mag_. viii. 627), and the
_Debate_ on the registration of seamen (_ib_. xi.). But it is absurd to
attribute to him passages such as the following, which in certain
numbers are plentiful enough long after June 1738. 'There never was any
measure pursued more consistent with, and more consequential of, the
sense of this House' (_ib_. ix. 340). 'It gave us a handle of making
such reprisals upon the Iberians as this Crown found the sweets of'
(_ib_. x. 281). 'That was the only expression that the least shadow of
fault was found with' (ib. xi. 292).
'Johnson told me himself,' says Boswell (_ante_, p. 150), 'that he was
the sole composer of the _Debates_ for those three years only
(1741-2-3). He was not, however, precisely exact in his statement, which
he mentioned from hasty recollection; for it is sufficiently evident
that his composition of them began November 19, 1740, and ended February
23 [22], 1742-3.' Some difficulty is caused in following Boswell's
statement by the length of time that often elapsed between the debate
itself and its publication. The speeches that were spoken between Nov.
19, or, more strictly speaking, Nov. 25, 1740, and Feb. 22, 1743, were
in their publication spread through the _Magazine_ from July 1741 to
March, 1744. On Feb. 13, 1741, Lord Carteret in the House of 'Lords, and
Mr. Sandys, 'the Motion-maker[1467],' in the House of Commons, moved an
address to the King for the removal of Sir Robert Walpole. Johnson's
report of the debate in the Lords was published in the _Magazine_ for
the next July and August. The year went round. Walpole's ministry was
overthrown, and Walpole himself was banished to the House of Lords. A
second year went by. At length, in three of the spring numbers of 1743,
the debate on Sandys's motion was reported. It had been published in the
_London Magazine_ eleven months earlier.
Cave, if he was tardy, nevertheless was careful that his columns should
not want variety. Thus in the number for July 1743, we have the middle
part of the debate in the Lords on Feb. 1, 1743, the end of the debate
in the Commons on March 9, 1742, and the beginning of another in the
Commons on the following March 23. From the number for July 1741 to the
number for March 1744 Johnson, as I have already said, was the sole
composer of the _Debates_. The irregularity with which they were given
at first sight seems strange; but in it a certain method can be
discovered. The proceedings of a House of Commons that had come to an
end might, as I have shown, be freely published. There had been a
dissolution after the session which closed in April 1741. The
publication of the _Debates_ of the old parliament could at once begin,
and could go on freely from month to month all the year round. But they
would not last for ever. In 1742, in the autumn recess, the time when
experience had shewn that the resolution of the House could be broken
with the least danger, the _Debates_ of the new parliament were
published. They were continued even in the short session before
Christmas. But the spring of 1743 saw a cautious return to the reports
of the old parliament. The session closed on April 21, and in the May
number the comparatively fresh _Debates_ began again. In one case the
report was not six months after date. In the beginning of 1744 this
publication went on even in the session, but it was confined to the
proceedings of the previous winter.
The following table shews the order in which Johnson's Debates were
published:--
_Gentleman's _Debate or part
Magazine_. of debate of_
July, 1741 {Parliament was dissolved } Feb. 13, 1741
{ on April 25, 1741. }
Aug. " Feb. 13, "
Sept. " {Jan. 27, "
{Mar. 2, "
Oct. " Mar. 2, "
Nov. " Mar. 2, "
Dec. " { The new Parliament met} Dec. 9, 1740
{ on Dec. 1. }
_Gentleman's Debate or part
Magazine. of debate of_
Supplement to 1741 Dec. 2, "
Dec. 12,"
Jan. 1742 Feb. 3, 1741
Feb. 27, "
Feb. " Jan. 26, "
April 13, "
Mar. " Feb. 24, "
April 13, "
April " Jan. 27, "
Feb. 24, "
May " Nov. 25, 1740
June " Nov. 25, "
April 8, 1741
July " The session ended on July April 8, "
15. Dec. 1, "
Dec. 4, "
Aug. " Dec. 4, "
Sept. " Dec. 4, "
Dec. 8, "
Oct. " Dec. 8, "
May 25, 1742
Nov. " The Session opened on May 25, "
Nov. 16.
Dec. " May 25, "
June 1, "
Supplement to 1742 Dec. 10, 1740
June 1, 1742
Jan. 1743 Dec. 10, 1740
Feb. " Feb. 13, 1741
Mar. " Feb. 13, "
April " The Session ended on April 21 Feb. 13, "
May " Mar. 9, 1742
Nov. 16, "
June " Mar. 9, "
Feb. 1, 1743
July " Mar. 9, 1742
Mar. 23, "
Feb. 1, 1743
Aug. " Feb. 1, "
Sept. " Feb. 1, "
Oct. " Feb. 1, "
Nov. " Feb. 22, "
Dec. " The Session opened on Dec. 1 Feb. 22, "
Supplement to 1743 Feb. 22, "
Jan. 1744 Feb. 22, "
Feb. " Dec. 10, 1742
Feb. 22, 1743
Mar. " Dec. 10, 1742
During the rest of 1744 the debates were given in the old form, and in a
style that is a close imitation of Johnson's. Most likely they were
composed by Hawkesworth (_ante_, p. 252). In 1745 they were fewer in
number, and in 1746 the reports of the Senate of Lilliputia with its
Hurgoes and Clinabs passed away for ever. They had begun, to quote the
words of the Preface to the _Magazine_ for 1747, at a time when 'a
determined spirit of opposition in the national assemblies communicated
itself to almost every individual, multiplied and invigorated periodical
papers, and rendered politics the chief, if not the only object, of
curiosity.' They are a monument to the greatness of Walpole, and to the
genius of Johnson. Had that statesman not been overthrown, the people
would have called for these reports even though Johnson had refused to
write them. Had Johnson still remained the reporter, even though Walpole
no longer swayed the Senate of the Lilliputians, the speeches of that
tumultuous body would still have been read. For though they are not
debates, yet they have a vast vigour and a great fund of wisdom of their
own.
* * * * *
APPENDIX B.
JOHNSON'S LETTERS TO HIS MOTHER AND MISS PORTER IN 1759. (_Page 340_.)
Malone published seven of the following letters in the fourth edition,
and Mr. Croker the rest.
'TO MRS. JOHNSON IN LICHFIELD.
'HONOURED MADAM,
'The account which Miss [Porter] gives me of your health pierces my
heart. God comfort and preserve you and save you, for the sake of Jesus
Christ.
'I would have Miss read to you from time to time the Passion of our
Saviour, and sometimes the sentences in the Communion Service, beginning
"_Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest_."
'I have just now read a physical book, which inclines me to think that a
strong infusion of the bark would do you good. Do, dear mother, try it.
'Pray, send me your blessing, and forgive all that I have done amiss to
you. And whatever you would have done, and what debts you would have
paid first, or any thing else that you would direct, let Miss put it
down; I shall endeavour to obey you.