ANTICIPATION




                              ANTICIPATION

                                   BY
                             RICHARD TICKELL

                           Reprinted from the
                       First Edition, London, 1778
                                 With an
                  Introduction, Notes & a Bibliography
                          of Tickell’s Writings

                                   BY
                            L. H. BUTTERFIELD

                               _NEW YORK_
                 King’s Crown Press, Morningside Heights
                                  1942

        _Introduction, Notes, and Bibliography copyright 1942 by_
                            L. H. BUTTERFIELD

                 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                              KZ-19-VB-500

         _King’s Crown Press is a division of Columbia University
         Press organized for the purpose of making certain scholarly
         material available at minimum cost. Toward that end, the
         publishers have adopted every reasonable economy except
         such as would interfere with a legible format. The work is
         presented substantially as submitted by the author, without
         the usual editorial attention of Columbia University Press._




_To C. J. F. B._




FOREWORD


Some years ago a literary investigator came into my office and inquired
whether he could find a copy of Richard Tickell’s _Anticipation_ in
our library. He was thinking of sending to the British Museum for a
photostatic copy, in case we could not supply his need. We were able to
reply that we had sixteen editions of this book—ten of them printed in
the year 1778 alone. Now publishers do not re-issue a book unless someone
is reading it. The number of reprints induced me to read the book, and I
found it one of the best of eighteenth-century satires on the ponderous
serio-comic addresses delivered in what is still pleased to call itself
the M-th-r of P-rl—m-nts. Though Mr. Butterfield has restrained himself
in the matter of drawing parallels between the bumbling follies of that
legislative conclave, then and now, yet the writer of a foreword may be
permitted to do so.

In the summer of 1941, I received in the mail a pamphlet, in an envelope
which bore a Chinese postage stamp and the postmark of Shanghai. The
pamphlet was one of the familiar blue-covered fascicles which we all
recognize as the format of the _Parliamentary Debates_. This particular
fascicle purported to contain the debate for August 15, 1941, and was
typographically exact, even to the reproduction of the arms of H-s
Br-t-nn-c M-j-sty on the cover. An examination revealed it to be the
twentieth-century parallel of Tickell’s _Anticipation_—a satiric report
of the debates in the H—s- of C-mm-ns as of 1941. It was obvious German
propaganda, but so well done typographically that I found some of my
learned colleagues had read a part of it before it dawned on them that
the whole thing was analogous to Tickell’s _Anticipation_. But let no
American be complacent about the failure of the H—s- of C-mm-ns to
progress during the intervening one hundred and sixty-three years. Let
him dip into our own _C-ngr-ss—n-l R-c-rd_.

Mr. Butterfield and the publisher could have chosen no more appropriate
time than the present at which to issue the twentieth-century edition
of this book. It ought to be read by all students of American
history—elementary and advanced.

                                                        RANDOLPH G. ADAMS

    The W. L. Clements Library
    Ann Arbor




EDITOR’S FOREWORD


This is the first reprint since 1822 of a politico-literary satire that
delighted a generation of readers during and after the American War of
Independence. It has seemed to the editor, and to others who encouraged
the project, that the neglect of _Anticipation_ has been due less to its
want of interest than to the want of a properly edited reprint. The mere
presence in it of so many names with deleted letters has discouraged
later readers.[1] The present volume provides an account of the author
and of the setting and reception of _Anticipation_, an accurate text,
explanatory notes, and a bibliography of Tickell’s writings.

_Anticipation_ was written and printed hastily; and the spelling
(especially of proper names), the punctuation, and sometimes even the
grammar are erratic. But since it has proved impossible to distinguish
the carelessness of the printer from that of the author, I have followed
the first issue literally except when corrections were available in the
following later ones: “The Third Edition, Corrected,” which appeared
within a week of first publication; “The Tenth Edition, Corrected,” 1780,
which was the last published during Tickell’s life; and “A New Edition,
Corrected,” 1794, a re-issue occasioned, probably, by Tickell’s death and
set from new type. Two or three flagrant errors (e.g., the name “Bonille”
for “Bouillé” at p. 59) and a few typographical absurdities (such as
quotation marks without mates) recur in all the London issues. These I
have corrected without warrant from any text.

It should be stated that in the Introduction I have usually not cited
sources for dates and other biographical details when the sources are
correctly given in W. Fraser Rae’s article on Tickell in _The Dictionary
of National Biography_. Unless otherwise indicated, the place of
publication of all works cited is London.

A great many friends have contributed to the making of this book, and
almost as many librarians in the United States and England have aided my
researches for it. Some special debts I wish to record here. Randolph G.
Adams, Director of the William L. Clements Library at Ann Arbor, Julian
P. Boyd, Librarian of Princeton University, and Professor George Sherburn
of Harvard have read my manuscript and given me helpful advice. W. S.
Lewis, Esq., of Farmington, Connecticut, kindly allowed me to quote
from notes written by Horace Walpole in a copy of _Anticipation_ now in
Mr. Lewis’ collection of Walpoliana; Richard Eustace Tickell, Esq., of
London, sent me useful material from the Tickell family papers; Mrs.
Flora V. Livingston and Mr. William Van Lennep, curators, respectively,
of the Widener Collection and the Theatre Collection in the Harvard
College Library, allowed me to quote from manuscript letters in their
charge; the New York Public Library gave me permission to reproduce the
title-page that precedes the text. For aid in preparing the Bibliography
of Tickell’s Writings I am most indebted to Mr. John D. Gordan of the New
York Public Library, who read and ably criticized it; to Miss Anne S.
Pratt of the Yale University Library, and Mr. Frederick R. Goff of the
Library of Congress, who answered numerous bibliographical inquiries;
to the Union Catalog in the Library of Congress and its staff; and to
the admirable _Bibliotheca Americana_, begun by Joseph Sabin, continued
by Wilberforce Eames, and then completed by R. W. G. Vail, New York,
1868-1937. The services of Herbert B. Anstaett, Librarian of Franklin and
Marshall College, have been so various, constant, and indispensable that
they deserve my most sincere thanks. No thanks, however, can be adequate
for the devoted work and interest bestowed on the preparation of this
book, from beginning to end, by my wife.

       *       *       *       *       *

I am grateful also to the following publishers for permission to quote
from the books named: The Clarendon Press, Oxford, for _Boswell’s Life of
Johnson_ edited by George Birkbeck Hill, revised and enlarged edition
by L. F. Powell; _The Letters of Horace Walpole_ edited by Mrs. Paget
Toynbee; and _Satirical Poems Published Anonymously by William Mason with
Notes by Horace Walpole_ edited by Paget Toynbee. Constable and Company,
Ltd., for _Sheridan: From New and Original Material_ by Walter Sichel.
Henry Holt and Company for _Sheridan: A Biography_ by W. Fraser Rae. The
Huntington Library for _The American Journal of Ambrose Serle, Secretary
to Lord Howe 1776-1778_, edited by Edward H. Tatum, Jr. Hutchinson and
Company, Ltd., for _The Farington Diary_ by Joseph Farington, R.A.,
edited by James Greig. John Lane, the Bodley Head, Ltd., for _The Last
Journals of Horace Walpole during the Reign of George III from 1771-1783_
edited by A. Francis Steuart. The Macmillan Company for _The Writings of
Benjamin Franklin_ edited by Albert Henry Smyth. John Murray for _Private
Letters of Edward Gibbon (1753-1794)_ edited by Rowland E. Prothero.
Martin Secker and Warburg, Ltd., for _The Linleys of Bath_ by Clementina
Black. The Viking Press, Inc., for _The Private Papers of James Boswell
from Malahide Castle_ as originally published in a limited edition by
William Rudge and to be published in an unlimited edition by The Viking
Press, Inc., under the editorship of Professor Frederick A. Pottle.

                                                                 L. H. B.

    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    March 1941

[1] In the present text deleted letters are supplied within square
brackets. Originally the use of blanks and asterisks in names of persons
was a means of avoiding libel actions. One should never print a man’s
name out at length, said Swift in _The Importance of the Guardian
Considered_, 1713; “but, as I do, that of Mr. St—le: so that, although
everybody alive knows whom I mean, the plaintiff can have no redress
in any court of justice.” This was such an easy way to add piquancy to
defamation that it became conventional in satire. In 1778 the reviewer of
an anti-ministerial poem called _The Conquerors_ observed that the work
seemed “designed for the perusal of astronomers; there are more _stars_
in it than the galaxy contains” (_The Critical Review_, XLV, 150).




CONTENTS


                                          PAGE

    FOREWORD _by Randolph G. Adams_        vii

    EDITOR’S FOREWORD                       ix

    INTRODUCTION                             3

      NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION             17

    ANTICIPATION                            21

    NOTES                                   67

    BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TICKELL’S WRITINGS      85




    He was the happiest of any occasional writer in his day: happy
    alike in the subject and in the execution of it.—I mention
    with pleasure _Anticipation_, the _Wreath of Fashion_, &c. &c.
    &c. and I wish to preserve the name and remembrance of such
    a man as Mr. Tickell. Poets and ingenious men, who write on
    occasional subjects with great ability, are too often lost
    in the most undeserved oblivion. But we must recollect, that
    even such a poem as “The Absalom and Achitophel” of Dryden
    himself (perhaps his greatest production) was but _occasional_,
    and written _for a party_.⸺_The Pursuits of Literature_, 5th
    edition, 1798




INTRODUCTION


_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.

Sir, The Phœnicians

       *       *       *       *       *

It was a custom also among the Chaldeans and the Nazareens

       *       *       *       *       *

Recollect, Sir, when news was brought to the Persians

       *       *       *       *       *

So the Macedonians

       *       *       *       *       *

In like manner the Lacedemonians, and the Athenians

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus too the Carthagenians

       *       *       *       *       *

Here let me call your attention to the Romans and Syracusians

       *       *       *       *       *

Need I remind you of the northern hive, or trouble you with the Goths and
Vandals?

       *       *       *       *       *

So too, Sir, the Chinese

       *       *       *       *       *

At length, Mr. Sp[ea]k[e]r, the Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Venetians,
Neapolitans, Spaniards, French, Portuguese, Muscovites, Turks, Saracens,
and others, that I skip over to avoid tediousness

       *       *       *       *       *

And to bring it home to our feelings, the ancient Britons, hardy Welch,
Milesians, wild Irish, Saxons, Picts, Normans, English, and _Regattaites_
rush upon our mind, and

       *       *       *       *       *

From this historical deduction, I cannot but think, Sir, navigation
highly necessary, highly favourable to liberty.

If, Sir, I wanted any additional reason for opposing the address, it
would best arise from the shameful neglect and inattention to those
brave and humane French officers, (particularly the Captain of the
Licorne,) lately on their parole at Alresford, half of whom, indeed,
ministry have cruelly suffered to run away. Besides, Sir, let us advert
to the wretched deficiency in our late naval equipments.⸺I have it,
Sir, from undoubted authority, that the several ships crews laboured
under a total deprivation of Tobacco. Tobacco! that staple commodity
of our once flourishing subjects, now, alas, our avowed enemies, in
Virginia, and the Southern colonies.—Sir, not only the quota of Gin
was miserably retrenched, but adultery, so congenial to the _Noah_ of
this day, pervaded every keg in the Royal Navy.—Sir, I myself know it
for a fact, that the speaking trumpet of the Albion was sent out in
so wretched a condition, that, in haling a fishing-boat, (I believe
a cod-smack) off Scilly, the second mate cracked his pipe, and half
the crew have been hoarse ever since—some of your ships, Sir, wanted
their complement of Chaplains:—and in others, I will not say that I
know there were not surgeons, but I will say, I do _not_ know that
there were. Sir, more fatal consequences have arisen from a strange
neglect of vegetables—Potatoes, radically rotten!—Carrots, diabolically
dry!—Turnips, totally tough!—Parsnips, pitifully putrid!⸺Scurvy, Sir,
Scurvy, like the angry Dæmon of Pestilence, has lighted up everlasting
bon-fires in the blotched brows and cicatracious cheeks of your scarified
seamen; so that every crew has flashed contagion, and reeked like a
floating Pest-house, with the baneful exhalations of disease.—And now,
Sir, that I’m on my legs, a word or two to trowzers—Such is the pitiful
œconomy of Administration, such the paltry treachery of Contractors,
that, what from an original coarseness of yarn, what, from the more
pernicious and slovenly texture of the workmanship, not a trowzer but
gaped with lacerations, whose expanded apertures discovered what⸺the
P[a]rl[ia]m[e]nt[a]ry decorum of this house, forbids me to reveal.
Spurred on by such powerful incentives, I take this earliest occasion
to give notice to the house, that I shall move, on this day fortnight,
for the house to resolve itself into a Committee, in order to take into
consideration the several weighty grievances, the outline of which I
have just now had the honour to give you a rude sketch.—When, I shall
also move you, Sir, that the several Maltsters, Distillers of Gin,
Venders of Tobacco, Traders in Trowzers, Retailers of Rum, Picklers of
Pork, and Purveyors of Potatoes, together with their several servants,
followers, apprentices and retainers, be ordered to attend this house _de
die in diem_, to answer all such questions and matters touching the said
enquiry, as shall be put to them by the Committee so to be appointed.—In
the mean time, Sir, I shall give my hearty concurrence to the noble
Lord’s Amendment, as promising to afford some degree of preliminary
information, which may tend to illustrate the more important matter in
the Enquiry which I have now proposed to set on foot.

[Sidenote: Mr. P[e]nt[o]n.]

Mr. _P[e]nt[o]n_, in reply, begged pardon for troubling the house,
but hoped they would indulge him in a few words, as he felt himself
particularly called on to answer some reflections which the Honourable
Gentleman, who had spoke last, had thought proper to throw out against
that board where he had the honour to sit.—He said, that, at the time of
the fitting out of Mr. K[e]pp[e]l’s fleet, he had made it his business
to be very much at Portsmouth, where, though it was a task exceedingly
repugnant to his private feelings and taste, he had, however, considered
it as an official service incumbent on one in his department, to
personally experiment the several provisions and stores prepared for that
equipment. That, impelled by such motives, he had, on several occasions,
drank the small beer, not unfrequently tasted the gin, and sometimes
smoak’d, nay chewed the tobacco; that, in his humble opinion, they were
all super-excellent in their several kinds. And, as to the imputed
delinquency relative to potatoes, he could assure the house, he had
bought up several tuns of the same species, for the consumption of his
own family—nay, he would go further, he would venture to acquaint that
house, that with some of those very identical potatoes, he had lately
had the happiness and honour to regale a certain Great Personage, then
his guest; a personage indeed of too high a rank to have his name even
alluded to, though on so weighty, and so important a business.

[Sidenote: Mr. B[urke].]

_Mr. B[u]rke_⸺I must confess, Sir, notwithstanding my long and melancholy
experience of the present administration, I cannot hear, without
astonishment, the language held forth by the speech, and echoed in this
day’s debate. This session, Sir, at a period big with horror, pregnant
with ruin to this country, is ushered in with the song of triumph; and
parliament are bid to rejoice at a time when nothing but the language
of despair is to be heard throughout the nation. Surely, Sir, the hour
is at last arrived, when humility and moderation ought to take place
of pride and confidence; when, instead of launching further into a sea
of troubles, we might be content to try what little can be saved from
the wreck of national honour and prosperity. Ministers might at length
condescend to tell us, what means are left to avert the gathering ruin;
how we are to tread back the mazes of error and folly, through which
we have been led; and where are the resources from which one gleam of
hope might dawn upon us, in the hour of danger and despair—But, deaf to
the solemn call of occasion and necessity, they rejoice in the absence
of thought, in the contempt of foresight. Like the wretch who seeks in
stupefaction a momentary relief from sorrow, they sink from a voluntary
intoxication into a torpid insensibility. The illusion, indeed, is not
to be confined within the narrow limits of their own minds; its baneful
influence must be circulated through every corner of the nation; and, by
a shameful perversion, that anxiety for the public welfare, which, in
times like these, is, in my opinion, the highest of public virtues, must
be amused with the pageantry of domestic warfare, or lulled by the opiate
of our American Gazettes. I own, Sir, even on principles of criticism,
I cannot but consider the stile of these Ministerial annals, as no
very favourable criterion of the present times. In happier days, their
characteristic was plain conciseness. Victories were then too rapid, too
numerous, to admit of a dilated relation.—Success is seldom tedious, but
I am afraid our highest atchievements have amounted to no more than the
inroads of savages, or the depredations of pyrates. Upon my word, Sir,
though we may censure our Officers, our Ministers at least shew some
generalship; if they cannot deceive the enemy, they are prompt enough
to mislead their countrymen; though they discover but little skill in
the arrangement of armies, they have an admirable talent in marshalling
Gazettes. They have given celebrity to sheep-stealing, and blazoned, in
all the pompous prolixity of ostentatious phraseology, the important
depredations at—_Martha’s_ Island—Certainly, Sir, the gallant Commander
of that expedition may vie in pastoral atchievements with Ajax, with
Jason, or at least Don Quixote; and, if he does not obtain a triumph, he
is clearly entitled to an _ovation_. Not, Sir, that I mean to cast any
reflection on those Officers and Soldiers to whose lot these ridiculous
services have fallen—they, no doubt, have effected every thing that the
bravery of the British troops in such a situation could accomplish; but
the Hand of Nature, Sir, has thrown in their way obstacles which it
was not in the most obstinate valour, in the most consummate wisdom to
surmount. It is a want of confidence in the directors of this war that
has chilled every vein, and slackened every sinew of military enterprize.
Besides, Sir, if I may be permitted to indulge a little superstition,
there is a certain fatality attending the measures of Administration:
through all their bungling operations of war, through all their wretched
plans of peace, the evil Genius, Sir, of this country, seems to haunt
their footsteps. He it is that has suffered them to wander on, undismayed
by danger, unabashed by reproaches, from one absurdity to another, ’till
our blunders and our follies have at length reared that stupendous
fabric of American Empire that now engrosses the attention, and claims
the wonder of mankind. Allow me, Sir, to pause for a moment, while I
contemplate this phœnomenon of modern ages, this new constellation in
the western hemisphere; a mighty and extensive empire, not rising by
slow degrees and from small beginnings, but bursting forth at once into
full vigour and maturity; not cherished in the soft lap of peace and
commerce, but shaking off in its outset the long established dominion of
a powerful master, and thriving in the midst of carnage and desolation.
“Ab ipso ducit opes animumq. bello.” If we view them in another light, as
completely enthroned in sovereignty, as receiving embassies from distant
potentates, as forming leagues with the princes and states of Europe,
we shall find more abundant matter for self-humiliation—I could wish to
shut my eyes on the scene that follows: The parent baffled and depressed,
imploring pardon of her injured and alienated children, yielding to
their successful resistance, what she had denied to their prayers and
petitions, and offering every concession short of a total emancipation;
but scorned and rejected in her turn, not (as she had rejected them)
with rudeness and insolence, but with firmness and with dignity; and
convinced, at length, that the day of conciliation is past, and that the
groundwork of peace can only be laid on the broad basis of equality and
independance.

Is this the unconditional submission the noble Lord in the American
department so prodigally announced? This is indeed unconditional
submission, but unconditional submission from Great Britain to America.

Gentlemen may remember how often my voice has preached peace within these
walls; how often it has warned administration to healing measures, while
the wounds of America might yet have been closed. I will still repeat it,
’till the echo of this house shall be conscious of no other sound; Peace,
Peace, Peace, is still my object.

It is now high time, Sir, that Gentlemen should awaken to a sense of
our danger, that Parliament should discard those wretched schemes of
short-sighted policy, which cannot, in our present situation, afford even
a temporary refuge. As yet, we experience only the beginnings of our
sorrows; but the storms of adversity are gathering fast around us, and
the vessel is still trusted to the direction of Pilots, whose ignorance
and obstinacy has been manifest to all the world.⸺What thanks, Sir, to
the vigilance of our Rulers, that we are not already sunk beyond the
possibility of redemption? What thanks to them, that the flower of our
army and navy, and with them all the hopes of Britain had not withered
before the power of a lately dejected but now triumphant enemy? Is it
owing to their care that the rich produce of the Western Isles has not
flowed into every harbour of France?

No, Sir, it is the hand of Providence that wards off for a while the ruin
of this declining empire. It is Providence alone that has preserved our
gallant Admirals in America, by an almost miraculous interposition.—It is
due to Providence alone, that the heart-strings of our commerce are not
cut asunder by the sword of our adversaries.

I own, Sir, I cannot join in an implicit approbation of such ministers: I
must be a little better acquainted with their merits before I can place
an unlimited confidence in their wisdom and discretion; that discretion
which has led us into a labyrinth of difficulties; that wisdom that
cannot find a clue for our deliverance.

[Sidenote: Mr. D[u]nn[in]g.]

Mr _D[u]nn[i]ng_ said a few words, which, from the learned gentleman’s
being particularly hoarse and uncommonly inarticulate, owing (as has
been suggested) to a violent cold, and a multiplicity of business in
Westminster-hall, we could not collect with the accuracy that we wish
to observe on every occasion. His language was neat and pointed, though
somewhat tinctured with professional pedantry: his arguments seemed
ingenious, though perhaps too refined for the comprehension of his
auditors. He had much antithesis, much verbal gingle, and many whimsical
climaxes. He talked of the competency or incompetency of the House to the
discussion of the present question; of the materiality or immateriality
of the proposed amendment; of the responsibility or irresponsibility of
Ministers. He said, he neither asked, nor knew, nor cared to what the
present question might ultimately tend; but of this he was confident,
that it’s propriety was clearly evinced, and it’s necessity irrefragably
proved by that opposition which purported to baffle it.—Upon the whole,
his harrangue seemed to be a medley of legal quibble and quaint humour.

[Sidenote: Mr. S[olicito]r G[enera]l.]

Mr. _S[o]ll[i]c[i]t[o]r-G[e]n[e]r[a]l_, CONTRA, began with _declaring_,
that when he _tuk_ his present office, he _understud_ it to be a _General
Retainer_, to _shew cause_ in behalf of Administration: That, therefore,
he hoped to be favoured with a few words by way of _replication_ to
his learned friend: That he might in this case have insisted on _want
of notice_, but, for the sake of candour in practice, he would waive
that objection; for, that he had no doubt, on the merits, but that
_judgment wud be given_ in his favour: _Protesting_, that the speech
was _warranted_ by _precedent_, and had _the highest authority_ in it’s
support: _Protesting_ also, that no _gud_ objection _cud_ be made to
the address, as it strictly pursued the very words of the speech. He
_justified, under an immemorial custom_, that Administration _have been
accustomed to have, and still of right ought to have_, certain echoes in
this House, called _Addresses_.—He admitted, that _true it was_, there
had been some _errors in our proceedings_ with respect to America; but
he was informed, and believed, that Sir Henry Clinton intended to have
a _new trial_. As to the cause of Great Britain _versus_ France, he
had been given to understand and be informed, that the place in which
the _trespass_ was supposed to have been committed, was, PARCEL of
the Island of Dominica, _in parts beyond the seas_; which place said
French, with force of arms, to wit, with ships of divers guns, drums,
trumpets, bayonets, hand grenades, and cartridge boxes, had broken and
entered, _doing nevertheless as little damage on that occasion as they
possibly cud_: but that he was clearly of opinion, that if the troops
of said France should _traverse_ the Channel, and lay _a Venue_ in Kent
or Sussex, _issue might be joined_ by the militia at Cox-Heath; and, in
that case, _afterwairds_, if verdict _shud_ be given in our favour, the
adverse party would sustain heavy and exemplary _damages_.—He concluded
with _averring_, that he approved of the address in it’s present form;
and that he should _demur_ to the amendment moved by the Noble _Lud_, as
_multifarious, uncertain, insufficient, and informal_.

[Sidenote: Mr F[o]x.]

Mr _F[o]x_ now rose; and, with that extent of information, refined
perspicuity, and vehemence of eloquence, by which he so invariably
commands the attention and admiration of the House, entered at large into
the subject of debate.

To do justice to the force of his reasoning, or elegance of his stile,
is totally beyond the utmost efforts of the editor.—All that he can
attempt is, to give an imperfect sketch of an inimitable original.⸺He
began with lamenting the accomplishment of that ruin, which, from time
to time, he had too justly predicted. He confessed, that little merit
could be ascribed to those prophecies; which, however chimerical and
visionary ministers had affected to consider them, were, in fact, no
more than plain deductions of what must necessarily ensue from their own
measures. He proceeded to recapitulate the conduct of Administration
since the prorogation of Parliament; particularly observing on the
impolitic removal of the troops from Philadelphia at the moment, when, if
ever, their continuance _there_ might have effected some good purpose.
The concealment of that intended evacuation, even from the Commissioners
themselves, was a part (he said) of that system of duplicity and
deception which pervaded the whole of ministerial conduct. Possibly,
indeed, Ministers were aware, that gentlemen of high character and
esteem would not have become the executive tools of a plan so wretchedly
concerted. The Commissioners therefore were not suffered to participate
in counsels, which, if they had known, they must have despised. Nor was
folly more conspicuous in the origin than in the prosecution of this
paltry disingenuous plan. Sir Henry Clinton, to whose courage and conduct
every praise is due, was ordered to return to New-York. Encumbered with
baggage, and pursued by an army superior in numbers, he made his way
thro’ the almost impervious forests of that country; and, by almost a
miraculous effort, not only secured his retreat, but in the Jerseys had
the good fortune to resist the enemy with some success—a success however,
which, without disparaging the British troops, must in great part be
attributed to General Lee; who, in consequence of his misconduct in that
affair, was immediately put in arrest, and afterwards suspended for the
space of a year.

He went on with indicating the circumstance of a fleet of Victuallers
having been sent to Philadelphia, after the army, which was to be
supplied by that fleet, had been ordered to evacuate Philadelphia.—That
fleet, he said, had narrowly escaped being taken in the Delaware; and,
thence, he argued Ministers were as culpable, as if, in consequence
of the capture of that fleet, the army, then arrived at New-York, had
famished for want of those provisions, on which their future subsistance
was wholly dependant.

He said, he was yet to learn what plan Administration could pretend to
alledge they had followed, or meant to follow, in America. Upon what
grounds could they attempt to prosecute an _offensive_ war? Or, taking
the alternative, how can they presume to say they have acted on the
_defensive_?⸺As to the first, they have thirty thousand men to conquer
the continent of America: admitting then the superiority of their army
and their navy, still he contended that superiority had been, and ever
must be ineffectual and useless; because, as long as the English army and
navy co-operate, the Americans will never have the unnecessary temerity
to give up the advantage of situation, or expose their cause to the
hazard of one decisive engagement. The last campaign was the clearest
proof of that position; and, now, though our fleet was superior to the
French, yet D’Estaign is safe at Boston.—It was, on that principle,
he doubted not, the gallant and experienced Commanders of the last
campaign had formed their conduct: It was their policy, and, in his
opinion, the best policy, to keep a collected force, and to avoid any
inferior exertions, that might require a separation, or weaken that
superiority, which, in case of a decisive action, they rightly judged
could alone have been fatal to American resistance.—It remained for
General Clinton to pursue a contrary policy.—Yet, though (he declared)
no man in that house entertained a higher respect for the personal and
professional merit of that able Commander, (who from his particular
talent for military enterprise, and his education under the Prince of
Brunswick, was best calculated for effecting such a plan) yet, from the
minutest investigation of the late Gazettes, he could not collect any
very auspicious presage of his military career. If indeed, from his
observation, of what had already happened, he might hazard an opinion of
what may happen, we had no reason to rejoice at the revival of that plan
of separation, which had proved so fatal in the Northern expedition. He
was sorry he had mentioned that expedition—It led him to a subject he
wished to avoid.—He had been accused of an asperity of reflexion on the
conduct of the noble Lord who planned that expedition. He would strive,
in future, to overcome his indignation, by indulging his contempt for
the Adviser of it.—Yet, thus much he would say; though unhappy for this
country, it was happy for our troops, happy for our officers, to be
directed and controlled by a Minister, to whose wisdom not even Envy
could ascribe one particle of their success, in whose imbecillity even
Justice would afford them an asylum from every disgrace.

Having thus stated the impracticability of an offensive war in
America, either on the former plan of united force, or on the present
separate efforts, he recurred to the other part of his argument,
whether Administration could pretend to alledge their having adopted
the alternative, and formed even a defensive plan for America and the
West-Indies?⸺If they dared to assume that merit, how could they expect
the House to attend, with any degree of patience, to such a mockery of
all truth? On any rational plan of mere defence, would they not have left
a force at New-York, Rhode-Island, and Halifax, fully able to prevent
any attack in that quarter; at the same time, detaching a sufficient
force to protect the West-India Islands?—Upon such a plan, would not any
spirited Minister have grafted some degree of activity and enterprise?
Would He not have attacked Martinique, Guadaloupe, or St. Domingo? Such
conduct would have struck terror to France, we should have been enriched
by new acquisitions, or, at least, have prevented the disgrace of our own
losses.

But, admitting that this defensive plan may have been but recently
adopted, how are Administration to regain the time they have lost, or
what resources of finance are still unexhausted to prosecute even this
plan? Are all the Country Gentlemen equally disposed to devote fifteen
shillings in the pound to carry on this defensive war? Are they all
equally delighted with the great and growing ruin of an accumulating
debt and a decreasing revenue? Or do they rest their hopes on the wealth
of our East-India trade? Do they know that, there too, the French are
undermining the foundation of our commerce? Or is it studiously concealed
from them, that the French ministry have sent Monsieur Vaugelin to
Canton, in the quality of their Consul at the Chinese Court?⸺He had heard
much of a sudden increase of national wealth by our late captures, but,
at best, the prizes of privateers are a partial benefit; they can enrich
but a few individuals; they afford no diminution of the general burthens
of a whole people. In the present instance, the truth was these boasted
prizes were, in fact, public losses; the French having had the art to
insure their most valuable ships, particularly the Indiamen, by English
policies—besides that, several of the richest captures were actually
freighted with consignments to English merchants.

But, supposing this extraordinary spirit of bounty should become general
among the Country Gentlemen, and that, to support a war which had totally
lost the original object of revenue, for which they had been tempted
to engage in it; supposing they were all well inclined to a land-tax
of fifteen shillings in the pound, and determined to overflow the
Exchequer with an extraordinary redundance of profusion, yet would they
be particularly happy that all that wealth should be portioned out to
subsidise Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Hanau, Waldeck, Brandebourg-Anspach, and
all the mercenaries of Germany? Or that it should wholly be devoted to
satiate the monopolising avarice of a Russian alliance? You have no force
at home—you are almost defenseless.⸺

[Sidenote: Col. T[u]ffn[e]ll.]

(Here he was called to order by Colonel Tuffnell for speaking of the
_defenceless_ state of this country.) Col. _T[u]ffn[e]ll_ said, the word
_defenceless_ was, to the last degree, improper and disorderly; for that
he himself had the command at Dover Castle, opposite Calais, where,
though the country all about it was rather flat, he would not wish such
a word as _defenceless_ to be sent from that house to Paris, by any
friend of Dr. Franklin’s. And, as he was on his legs, he must say, that
word _defenceless_ was doubly wrong, from the late state of the camps;
where, in spite of French spies, there had been the utmost discipline,
unanimity, peace, and quietness; except, indeed, some desertions, much
nakedness, frequent floggings, and several duels.

Mr. _F[o]x_ then proceeded, without any remark on this interruption;
and observed, that every petty Landgrave and Margrave had already been
exhausted; they had no more Chasseurs, no more mercenary boors, to
fight, or rather not to fight, our battles. Russia is frozen up for
some months; and, not improbably, the courts of Berlin and Vienna would
sufficiently engage her in their Bavarian contest; or, at least, not
make it adviseable for her to lessen the internal defence of a country
surrounded with such powerful armies. As to the Fleet, how could it be
recruited with sailors or marines? Though even the spirit of adventure
could instantly man every Privateer that had been fitted out, yet the
noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty had pretended to palliate his own
incapacity and criminal neglect, by alledging it was almost impossible,
even with an extraordinary bounty, and the utmost rigour of an Impress
and an Embargo, to man the Royal Fleet—the fact was, the minds of the
people were obstinately bent against this American war; nay, even against
a French war, when France became the protector of America.

With such Ministers, such principles, such plans, such internal
resources, such prospects of alliance; Gentlemen were now called on to
echo the Speech, to panegyrize an Administration too despicable for
satire, to plunge this devoted country in aggravated ruin, and, with a
remorseless dispair, to _desolate_ what they had found impossible to
_subdue_.

[Sidenote: Lord N[o]rth.]

L[o]rd _N[o]rth_.[8] Mr. Sp[eake]r, at the same time that I agree with
many Gentlemen who have spoken in the course of this day’s debate, that
the present is a very serious moment of deliberation, I can by no means
join with them in thinking our situation is desperate, though, I confess,
it is distressing.

Sir, in all cases of distress or difficulty there is some relief to be
found in comparison. Gentlemen who hear me, will admit that this country,
in former wars, has been acquainted with unfortunate events. The loss
of some of our possessions, and the failure of enterprizes, marked the
onset of last war. Commanders were unsuccessful, perhaps criminal;—I do
not mean to draw a complete analogy between that period and the present—I
only mean to observe, that there has been no difficulty in modern
times, from which this Country has not been able to extricate itself,
when rouzed by a sense of its wrongs, and determined to vindicate its
justice, its dignity, and its honour.⸺In saying this, I shall be told by
Gentlemen that we were indebted to a great Character in the midst of our
misfortunes during the last war, and that, by his vigour and enterprizing
genius, this Country was extricated from her embarrassing situation. I
will join heartily in paying that tribute of truth to his memory⸺Would
to God that such a man were alive at this moment, to step forward with
the full exertion of the same zeal, and the same talents. I would yield
to none as a second in the work, though I confess my inability to be
employed as a first.

Sir, the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last, has gone over such a
variety of ground, and has given so large a history of the wickedness
of Ministers during the American war, that the asperity with which he
has delivered it, would be a sufficient reason for my silence, did I not
think it necessary, from a duty I owe to this house and to my country, to
give some answers to assertions which have fallen from him.

Sir,[9] to the first complaint, which the Honourable Gentleman makes,
of the Minister’s concealment from the Commissioners of the removal of
the troops from Philadelphia, I shall only answer, that the importance
of that proceeding required the nicest secrecy, and (though I do not
mean to suggest the least idea disadvantageous to the confidence of the
Commissioners) it is perhaps owing to the secret decision upon that
matter, that the removal of the fleet and army from the Delaware was
so timely, and so effectually executed. And I will add, that (whatever
opinions may have been conceived either by the Commissioners or any
other persons) the events, which have since happened, amply justify the
wisdom of the measure.⸺With respect to the bad policy, as some Gentlemen
have called it, of opening a negotiation with a retreating army, will
any one tell me, that, had your army and navy been blocked up by Mons.
D’Estaign’s fleet, with the prospect of all of the latter being utterly
destroyed in the Delaware, the Congress would have been more inclined to
treat with your Commissioners, than when all were safe at New-York?—Were
they inclined to negotiate with Lord H[o]we and Sir William H[o]we, (who
had sufficient powers) at Philadelphia, after the receipt of the bills,
and before the arrival of the new Commissioners?⸺No, Sir—no appearances
of reconciliation on the part of the Congress were shewn at that
time:—their minds, worked up by their leaders to a spirit of enthusiasm,
indulged the expectation of destruction to our fleet, at least, from the
powers of France.—I am free to confess, Sir, that when I heard Mons.
D’Estaign had arrived in America previous to Admiral Byron, (whose fleet
had been so unfortunately dispersed) I had little hopes from the temper
and inclinations of the Congress, that they would be induced to treat;
until some blow had been struck, and that on our part, of a successful
nature.—My confidence was, and still is, Sir, in the people there at
large—groaning under the worst of all tyrannies, involved in a ruinous,
and, I maintain, an unsuccessful war; and driven by their corrupted
leaders into a most unnatural connection with France; I say, Sir, if
one spark of British sense and honour yet remains, if one drop of blood
of this country still flows in the veins of the Americans, they will
avail themselves of our liberality, and return to their former happy and
enviable subordination to this country.

With respect to the Fleet of Victuallers, which, the Honourable
Gentleman observed, had a narrow escape from the Delaware, it was
supposed they had sailed from Corke, some time before the orders were
sent from hence for the evacuation of Philadelphia; and it is very lucky
they did not sail for New-York; for, if they had, they would have met
with Monsieur D’Estaign there.

It has been urged by the Honourable Gentleman, that the American war can
be no longer made offensive; and therefore, if a defensive one has been
adopted, why not leave a sufficient number of troops for the defence of
New-York, Rhode-Island, Halifax, and the Floridas? and strike some blow
at the French Settlements in the West-Indies.—Gentlemen will recollect
the little time that has elapsed since the evacuation of Philadelphia,
the attack and defence of Rhode-Island, and the transactions between Lord
Howe’s and D’Estaign’s Fleet, and they will see how difficult it was to
be at a great many places at the same time.—With respect to Dominica,
Sir, the loss of it is certainly a misfortune, but, I trust, only a
temporary one. There can be no blame laid upon the Ministers for that
event, because, in the very beginning of the war with France, ships were
sent sufficient to make at least a superior force to the French in the
West-Indies. I am aware of the force of the argument that will be made
use of upon this occasion—Gentlemen will say, You have so many places
and possessions to guard, that many of them must be vulnerable; and
therefore it is impossible to go on in a war with France and America at
the same time, with any reasonable expectations of success.—This argument
will lead me to enter a little into what I conceive to be our actual
situation at home and abroad.—With respect to this country, Sir, it is
protected by a fleet superior to the French.—It contains, to the honour
of those who have sacrificed domestic ease to public spirit, a very fine
army, including the regulars, of 50,000 men.—Your ships of trade and
merchandise have arrived safe and unmolested; whilst the Privateers and
Letters of Marque have made considerable havock upon the property of our
enemies.⸺And here I must remark upon two observations which have fallen
from the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last.—The first, with respect to
the number of sailors who have entered on board these ships at a time
when there was so much difficulty in manning the fleet, and which is
a charge of ignorance in obtaining them upon the Admiralty.—Sir, the
bounty which has been given to seamen by individuals, to enter on board
Privateers and Letters of Marque, has been enormous—I have been told
10 l.—15 l.—and 20 l. a-man.—This, with the expectation of the larger
share of prize-money received by lesser vessels, has been a sufficient
inducement to men to enter on board those ships.⸺Upon the other
observation, that the prizes we have taken consist chiefly of British
property, and are insured here—I shall only remark, that the Merchant
here who employs French shipping and French navigation, in preference
to the British, ought to suffer.—But, Sir, with respect to insurance,
let us see which of the two countries suffers most on that head.—The
insurance upon French ships homeward bound has been very high.—Upon the
French Indiamen, I have heard, so high as 75 l. per cent.—Then, Sir, this
being the case, if the Frenchman arrives safe in France, the Englishman
gets 75 l. per cent.—If he is taken, he loses but 25 l. per cent. whilst
his neighbour shares the prize entirely.—Surely, therefore, Sir, this
country has certainly much the best of the bargain.—This, however, Sir,
great as these advantages are, is no reason nor no inducement with me
for continuing the war.—I am obliged to recur so often to what has been
said, that I beg pardon for deviating from the chief object, at least
of my consideration—that of our actual situation at home and abroad.—I
have already said, Sir, that we are sufficiently defended by our navy
and army at home.—We have certainly a greater superiority of both in
North America—of ships in the West-Indies—superior in the East-Indies,
and shall be more so when the ships now ready to proceed thither, and
with troops, are arrived there.—Sir, there is wealth, I trust there is
likewise spirit enough in this country, to support us even in a more
embarrassing situation than the present. And, though Gentlemen may have
wished to impeach the security of this country, I will fairly tell
them, that, such is the confidence, even in the hour of her distress,
foreigners of all nations have given, and do give, the preference to our
funds;—the falling of which, immediately after the opening of the last
budget, is to be imputed entirely to the jobbing of a good purchase at
a low bargain, and not to a want of confidence in the nation. I could
deduce many reasons to justify me in this opinion; and I could call upon
the Dutch, as the best politicians, in support of it.—Nor, Sir, will I
admit the prospect of ruin to be before us, until I see that the justice
of our cause has left us, and that there no longer exists that zeal and
bravery which have distinguished the people of Great Britain, as superior
to the rest of the world⸺Sir, a great deal has been said by Gentlemen
(who have in my idea gone over, unnecessarily at this time, the whole
of the American war) with respect to the conduct of it.⸺I believe, even
the most inveterate enemies Ministers may have, will allow that there
was transported to a greater distance, than ever was known before, the
finest army; that you fed and maintained it at that distance; and that,
from its excellence and its superiority, you had a right to expect the
most happy advantages. So far the business, as it concerned Ministry, was
well transacted. But, Sir, then comes the question—were the plans and the
directions to execute them wise and practicable?⸺I cannot but say, Sir,
for my own part, and, as far as my Judgment went, they were so⸺I do not
mean to suggest any thing invidious towards the Officers to whom commands
and responsibility were delegated⸺I am not one of those who easily
condemn, certainly never will, before I have just grounds for doing so⸺If
our Army and Navy have not done in every part of the world what was
expected of them—Parliament can enquire, can approve, or censure⸺This
however appears to me but a secondary subject for our consideration.

Sir, much has been said with respect to the Union of France and America,
and the probability there is that Spain will soon be a party in it. I
will not rob many honourable Gentlemen of the gift of prophecy, of what
Spain will do in this conjuncture; but, Sir, surely her interest and her
policy should be to resist the Independance of America—She will never,
by protecting rebellion in our colonies, hold out encouragement to her
own to follow their example. It is idle, Sir, to indulge the idea of the
Spanish settlements in South America trading with the North Americans, by
purchasing, with Spanish Bullion, North American commodities. The Court
of Spain is much too wise, I think, to adopt such a measure. What, Sir,
might be the consequence? An intercourse and trade between the extremes
of that great quarter of the globe might at last be united by a centre,
and establish the greatest dominion in the World. For, time may produce
daring and flagitious characters in that continent also, whose object it
may be to destroy the sovereignty of Spain over her Colonists—Neither can
I agree with Gentlemen in thinking, that the union of America and France
can be lasting. I might as well suppose that different religions, Liberty
and slavery, in short, that contrarieties can form a system, as admit
that unity and harmony can ever last between France and America—Neither
of the countries expect it—The one supports, and the other receives,
merely for the temporary purpose of distressing Great Britain⸺France can
have no thoughts of establishing herself in the Heart of America. And
America will only avail herself of the assistance of France, until she is
at peace with this Country.

In the mean time, however, our exertions must be of a powerful nature
to resist this unnatural alliance—And here, Sir, let me return to
the consideration of what is proper to be done in consequence of his
M[ajes]ty’s speech.

Sir, in giving my entire approbation of what has been proposed by the
Honourable Gentleman in the motion for the Address, I trust I shall be
forgiven, if I submit to the House the necessity there is at this time
of vigour and firmness in all our proceedings, in order to give a spirit
to national exertion. And, whilst we regret that even our unanimity and
liberal offers have not been productive of peaceable accommodation with
America, I trust that her ingratitude may yet meet with the recompence
such a conduct has deserved: in holding out this doctrine, I mean not to
forget that America is still the offspring of Great Britain: that when
she returns to her duty, she will be received with open arms, and all her
faults be buried in oblivion.

In a word, Sir, the period is arrived, when it is no longer a question
who is to be Minister, who are to compose a party, or who have been to
blame. Such discussions will not probably obtain conviction on either
side—The day has passed for reflexions on those who have been alledged to
have given confidence to Insurgency, or on those who have been said to
have provoked it. The object of your consideration is now⸺the salvation
of your Country.

For myself, Sir, I shall no longer desire to remain in my own situation,
than his Majesty, and this House, think I can be useful in it. If any one
Man will take it from me, He will relieve me from the most anxious tasks
that any Minister probably ever experienced: But, till then, Sir, I look
to the support of this house, and to that of all good Men in defending
and maintaining the glory and honour of Great Britain.

[Sidenote: Col. B[a]rré.]

Col. _B[a]rré_ began with recounting his predictions.—I foretold in the
outset of the American contest, that your obstinacy would establish
independance of the colonies. My first prophecy was, that France would
join them—was I wrong?—I will boldly hazard one prediction more—I say,
Spain sooner or later will join both⸺such are the allies of America.—Who
are your’s? The Onandagas, the Tuscaroras, and the Choctaws! These are
your copper coloured allies, that fix a stain on the name of Britain;
and disgrace this country even in victory, as well as defeat—I knew of
these alliances, and their barbarities, so early as the 8th of June
last. I have a letter from a friend of mine at Poughkeepsie, of that
date;—the Indians, headed by Col. B[u]tl[e]r, began their rapine in
_Cherry Valley_; parties of _Indians and Tories_ (so my friend couples
those blood-hounds of desolation) butchered the innocent inhabitants of
_Sacandago_, and spread ruin and carnage through _Minisink_—I am sure,
Col. B[u]tl[e]r, (who is indeed as gallant and amiable an Officer as
ever I knew, and I know him well) never would have embrued his hands in
innocent blood, but that he knew he must sacrifice his feelings to the
speculative, I do not say practical, violence, of the American Secretary.
Gen. C[a]rlt[o]n lost the Noble Lord’s favour by his abhorrence of
the tomahawk and the scalping knife:—have not we tried those satanic
instruments of death too long? Is the whole of Miss _Macreas_ race to be
sacrificed? Not one innocent babe left unbutchered to lisp out the tale
of that devoted, that unhappy family? Of whom are we now to enquire for
any official documents of your war? I see no Secretary of War in this
house? Does the American Secretary monopolize and consolidate all warlike
business? I hope not.⸺

Sir, I beg pardon for the heat which I find rising within me—but the
inexorable hour of vengeance is not far distant; the heavy load of black
and bloody guilt will sink you all.—The time will come when the thunder
of the cannon will be heard at your walls. Examples will be made. The
Tower and the Block must expiate the crimes of Ministers. The voice of
truth will be heard. The Rubicon is passed.⸺Sir, what is the comparative
state of the revenues of France, and of this country? Mons. Neckar, a
very able and a very amiable man, has, I understand, found taxes, and
not oppressive ones, for two years;—is that a fact?—The revenue of this
country is diminished—it has been gradually so during this detestable
war—will Ministers deny it? Good God, Sir, what a state are we in?
Dominica lost!—Sir, Monsieur Bouillé was once my particular friend—Sir,
he is returned to France for fresh powers and orders—look to your
West-India settlements, callous as we are, we cannot bear the loss of
them.

Sir, I am astonished at the blind credulity of Ministry—can they be so
very simple as to trust to vague compliments against those decisive words
of the Pacte de Famille, the Family Compact, “Qui attaque une couronne
attaque l’autre;” (I translate for the country Gentlemen) whoever attacks
one crown attacks the other.⸺I know Count Almodovar—I was introduced to
him by my old friend, Don Francisco Buccarelli:—I never shall forget
dining with him at a kind of Table d’Hotes, in a tavern opposite the
Escurial;—as chance would have it, many more illustrious characters dined
with us that day; there was the Count, his wife’s cousin, and myself, on
one side of the table;—Count Cobentzel, and Baron Reidesdel (who were
then on their travels) and Duke de Chartres (who had just come from
Paris) sat opposite to us—Monsieur de Sartine (who came in the Duke’s
vis a vis) was at the foot of the table; and we put Buccarelli in the
chair⸺we had an excellent dinner—the wine was good—and we toasted the
Madrid beauties in bumpers of Packeretti—however, I was not so far gone
but I can very well remember what Almodovar whispered in my ear, while
_Cobentzel and Reidsdale_ were drinking Maxamilian Joseph of Bavaria’s
health. Colonel (says he) _Il alte se volto Estremadura che molto_—I
won’t translate it. I feel the respect due to Ambassadors.—But, will
Ministry answer a plain question? I put it roundly, because I ask for a
positive answer—Is there no treaty now on the tapis to cede Gibraltar, or
Port Mahon?—I say, the neutrality of Spain is to be trucked for by the
dismembring this country of its best possessions.—Here he proceeded to
read variety of Gazettes, American News-papers, two or three Treaties,
letters from gallant Officers in all parts of the world; accounts of
Cl[i]nt[o]n’s retreat; transactions of Lord H[o]we, and Mons. D’Estaign;
Alderman Oliver’s letter—affair at Rhode Island, &c. &c. &c. He went
also into a string of similar surmises, recognized various intimates
in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, and interspersed the whole with
a multiplicity of anecdotes, proverbs, quotations, menaces and bon
mots—concluding, that having then read to the house all the various
papers he himself could collect, he found it necessary to give his vote
for the Amendment, as the only way to get at more.

[Sidenote: Mr H. St[anle]y.]

Mr. H. _St[anle]y_ observed, that many Gentlemen had deviated from the
business immediately before the house, which, in his opinion, was merely
this: Whether this house will or will not support his M[ajest]y, and the
executive powers of government, in the endeavours to recal the Americans
to obedience, and to punish the natural enemies of this country?[10] That
his own opinion was determined by a conviction of the necessity, in this
hour of difficulty and distress, for exertion and firmness. Much has
been said of the wealth and resources of France in comparison of those
of England. I can only say, Sir, from all the observations I have been
able to make, that France is, with respect to its finances, certainly an
impoverished country. It has not yet recovered the impression made by
the last war; and, whatever Gentlemen may think, neither Mons. Neckar
(whom I very much respect) nor any other person, will be able, at least
for a great length of time, to overturn the old mode of attainment of
French money; I mean, Sir, by the vehicle of the _Fermeurs Generaux_.
It must be a minister of great courage indeed, and a King of Terrors,
that will new model the French finances; new taxes may be imposed, but
I much doubt of the collection of them. When a good contract has been
long in possession, it is too sweet to resign easily; and the _Fermeurs
Genereaux_ are too important to be offended, especially, when the state
is necessitated to have recourse to their assistance. In saying this, I
give full credit to Mons. Neckar for his attempt to improve the revenue
of France, and that too, when the attempt is surrounded with so much
difficulty and danger.⸺The revenue of this country, Sir, has not suffered
by the American war; the surpluses of the sinking fund, are as great as
during the state of perfect peace with America. Other countries have
taken from us those manufactures which we exported before with bounties
to America.

As I think Britain is still equal to resist, and, I trust, to subdue all
its Enemies, I am clearly for the Motion which has been proposed, and
seconded, by the honourable Gentlemen, with so much credit to themselves,
and with so particular a desert of the approbation of their Country.

[Sidenote: Gen. C[o]n[wa]y.]

_Gen. C[o]n[wa]y._ Mr. Sp[eake]r, I beg pardon for troubling the House
with one short word, Sir, at this late hour of the night, Sir, when
there are many Gentlemen very desirous⸺and much more capable than I am,
of speaking—upon so material—so important—so comprehensive a business—I
may say, Sir—as that which now immediately comes before us—for our
deliberation.⸺In doing this, Sir—in offering my poor sentiments—upon this
matter, Sir⸺I own, I feel some degree of warmth, at the supineness—at the
coolness—I may say—of the Ministers in so dangerous—so hazardous—and, God
knows, probably so destructive an hour⸺And, Sir, I hope I may suggest
my thoughts at so critical a period, when, indeed, all Europe and
America are convulsed—and shaken—by the imbecillity, the inattention,
and the indecision of Ministers; who have so supinely, so cooly, and so
indecisively sat _with their hands before them_, waiting for events—and
contingencies⸺In saying this, Sir,—I mean not to throw any reflexion upon
any of them—Most of them I know to be men of honour and ability—but, Sir,
I beg pardon, Sir, for taking up the time of the house, Sir; I think the
moment is past when any system can prevail, I mean on the part of this
country over America. Your West-India Islands are unprotected—Dominica is
gone—Who knows but Jamaica is gone too? What force have you at Antigua? I
understand, Admiral Barrington is gone from Barbadoes. What is to become
of St. Vincents and Grenada? Good God! Sir, will the Nation sit still
under these apprehensions? Have Ministers taken care of Ireland? Does
the Noble Lord underneath me know the state of Guernsey and Jersey? Will
they be able to resist Count Broglio with 50,000 men? Is your force,
particularly at Jersey, equal to resistance—Sir, at this moment, I
tremble for Jersey.[11]⸺

In one short word, Sir, I beg pardon—I do trust in God, Sir ... in the
King ... Sir, and in the spirit of this unhappy Nation, Sir, that we
shall be relieved from these dreadful apprehensions, and difficulties,
and that we shall see once more, Peace, Harmony, and Wisdom, resume their
order in this country, in the stead of weakness, irresolution, wavering
folly, absurd doubts, and indecision, Sir.

[Sidenote: Mr S[aw]b[rid]ge.]

Mr _S[aw]b[rid]ge_⸺Example—impeachment—axes—Tower—blood—Sister
Mac[au]ly—republicanism—Washington, greatest man in the World—will
be heard—tyranny at Warley-Common—militia men turned to
road-pioneers—undermining trees—sand in bread—waste of powder—Middlesex
election—vast expence of flints—triennial parliaments—body politic—ill
humours—state-surgeons—example—axes—Tower—blood⸺_Da Capo_.

The question being now called for with most violent impatience, the House
prepared to divide.⸺The Editor cannot but lament that the eloquence
of the day is compriseable in so small a compass.—He regrets, with
many others, the silence of those who might have been supposed, from
attachment, from principle, and a sense of honour, to have taken a more
decided part in the debate. Probably it might be considered too severe to
impute the conduct of those Gentlemen to the precariousness of the times,
to the expectation of new Administrations, or to the fretfulness of an
insatiable avarice of wealth and power.

Little more remains to add, than that the House having become very
clamorous for a division, at half past three the question on the
Amendment being put, the motion was rejected by a majority of 261 to 148.
Tellers for the Ayes, Mr T. T[ownshe]nd and Mr B[y]ng—for the Noes, Sir
G[re]y C[oope]r and Mr C[harles] T[ownshe]nd.⸺The main question being
then put, the original Address was carried in nearly the same proportion.

       *       *       *       *       *

Immediately after the division, the H[ous]e were much astonished at Mr
C[harle]s T[u]rn[e]r’s calling their attention to a most libellous,
nefarious, and enormous pamphlet, entitled _Anticipation_, calculated to
misrepresent the debates, and vilify the proceedings of P[arliamen]t;
observing, that the publication of Honourable Gentlemen’s speeches
_before_ they could possibly have been spoken, was infinitely more
dangerous to the constitution than mistaking them after they had actually
been delivered; as not only the public were thereby much more likely
to be deceived, but many country Gentlemen were most illegally hurried
up to town before the time, to the great annoyance of themselves and
cattle. Besides, what struck at the very heart-strings of debate, many
good speeches were marred thereby, and Honourable Gentlemen stopt from
repeating their own words, lest they should authenticate the said
publication.

For all which reasons, he humbly moved, that the Publisher of a
pamphlet, entitled, _Anticipation_, be immediately taken into custody
by a Messenger of this House, together with all papers in his shops and
warehouses, in order that this House may be enabled to discover the
Author or Authors of this very black conspiracy. He moved also, that the
several statutes against forgery, coining, and uttering, knowing to
be false, forestallers, and regraters, &c. &c. be forthwith all read.
And further⸺But, the laughter having now become intense, the remnant of
his oratory was cut short by a most clamorous repetition of _Adjourn_,
_Adjourn_; so that it was impossible for the Editor to collect the result
of this important motion.

And then the House adjourned till the morning, nine of the clock.


FINIS.


FOOTNOTES

[1] It was observed the S[peake]r was remarkable civil to the new
Att[o]rn[e]y G[e]n[e]r[a]l, as supposed upon his succeeding to that great
object of his wishes, which leaves Sir F[letche]r some chance of a Chief
Justiceship and a Peerage.

[2] Exempli gratiâ, for whether it is his Lordship’s Speech, or Lord J.
C[a]v[e]nd[i]sh’s, or Sir W. M[e]r[e]dith’s, or Sir G. Y[ou]ng’s, &c. the
subject matter and stile, with a few exceptions, is of course much the
same.

[3] Here Mr. B[a]mb[e]r G[a]sc[oy]ne headed the dinner troop, which
followed him with great precipitation—at the same time departed Sir John
Irw[i]n and Mr. S[e]lw[y]n, with his Honour Mr. Br[u]d[e]n[e]ll, of whom
great enquiries were made, respecting the present arrangements of the
Opera.—Nor were there wanting many cries for the question.

[4] Here Sir GR[E]Y C[OO]P[E]R caught at a pen, and began to take notes.

[5] Probably, from supposing the first origin of their connection to
have arisen (at least on the part of Dr. Franklyn) from a philosophical
rather than a political curiosity. And certainly, no two projectors in
Science were ever more strikingly contrasted: the one, like a modern
Prometheus, collecting fire from vapour to inflame the terrestrial mass
by its pernicious infusion: the other employing his magic _plates_ to
freeze its ardour and quench its malignity.—Happy for this country,
if these professors had shifted their pursuits! as the former, could
his inclinations have been propitious to the peace of mankind, might
then have become a powerfull _Extinguisher_, while the other, however
malignant his intentions, must always have been acknowledged an
_innocent_ Incendiary.

[6] The Editor was furnished with copies of this speech from the Printers
of the respective News Papers, many weeks ago.

[7] Gentlemen were here desired by the Sp[ea]k[e]r to take their seats,
and the Serjeant to clear the bar—places! places! was repeated with great
vehemence.

[8] As the Noble Lord was almost the only Speaker on the side of
Administration, the Editor felt it the duty of impartiality, after giving
so many excellent speeches on the opposite side, to collect this with
particular accuracy, which he was the better enabled to do, from the
deliberate manner of its being delivered, and the respectful attention
with which it was received.

[9] Here Lord N[o]rth took up Sir G[re]y C[oo]p[e]r’s notes.

[10] Whilst Mr. St[anle]y was speaking, Mr. B[yn]g was making numerical
criticisms on the state of the House, which Mr. R[o]b[i]ns[o]n had done
before, with his usual assiduity; and had taken his place at the door
accordingly.

[11] N.B. G[enera]l C[onwa]y is Governor of it.—Query, Whether he had not
better be there at this dangerous crisis?




NOTES




NOTES


PAGE 22

_The Gentlemen trading to the East-Indies, &c._ The publisher’s
advertisement burlesques a practice of the bookseller John Almon
(1737-1805), friend and biographer of John Wilkes, and between the
years 1761-81 publisher-in-ordinary to the Whig Opposition. Almon had
extensive connections in the American colonies and was the compiler of
_The Remembrancer_, 1775-84, a valuable collection of materials relating
to the Revolution. In his satire on the French ministry, _The Green Box
of Monsieur de Sartine_, 1779, Tickell represents a French spy in London
reporting ruefully:

    News-papers, pamphlets, parliamentary debates, remembrancers,
    and all the infinite variety of periodical libels, under the
    conduct of our good friend Mr. Almon, leave but a scanty and
    beaten field of politics for private discovery (pp. 12-13).


PAGE 23

_Sir Francis Molyneux._ Sir Francis Molyneux (d. 1812), Knt.; succeeded
his father as seventh Baronet, 1781.

_the Speaker._ Sir Fletcher Norton (1716-1789), Knt.; M.P. for Guildford;
Speaker of the House of Commons, 1770-80; cr. Baron Grantley of
Markenfield, 1782.

_the merit of those speeches._ Since the speech from the throne rarely
contains more than generalities, Tickell was able to approximate its
substance fairly closely. In the debate on the opening day John Wilkes
had the temerity to say that there were only two particulars in the
King’s speech to which he could assent: “They are, that we are called
together in a conjuncture, which demands our most serious attention, and
that a restoration of the blessings of peace ought to be our first wish”
(_Parliamentary History_, XIX, 1334).

_the new Attorney General._ Alexander Wedderburn (1733-1805), M.P. for
Bishop’s Castle; succeeded Edward Thurlow as Attorney-General, June
1778; elevated to the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas as Baron
Loughborough of Loughborough, 1780; cr. Earl of Rosslyn, 1801. In the
spring of 1778 Sir Fletcher Norton, by a threat of impeachment, had
blocked Wedderburn’s intrigue to obtain the Chief Justiceship; see
Walpole to Mason, 31 May 1778 (_Letters_, ed. Toynbee, X, 254).


PAGE 25

_Lord Granby._ Charles Manners (1754-1787), second son of the Marquis
of Granby famous as a military hero; M.P. for Cambridge University;
succeeded his grandfather as fourth Duke of Rutland, 1779.

_Pulteny._ Sir William Pulteney (1684-1764), Earl of Bath; long
the leader of the “patriot” opposition during Sir Robert Walpole’s
administration, but politically ruined by his acceptance, upon Walpole’s
fall, of an earldom.

_Cavendish ... Meredith ... Young._ Three supporters of the Whig
Opposition: John Cavendish (1732-1796), fourth son of the third Duke of
Devonshire, M.P. for York, friend and correspondent of Burke; Sir William
Meredith (1725?-1790), third Baronet, M.P. for Liverpool; Sir George
Yonge (1731-1812), fifth Baronet, M.P. for Honiton.


PAGE 26

_that inestimable character of our own times._ William Pitt (1708-1778),
first Earl of Chatham. The “Great Commoner’s” acceptance of a peerage in
1766 occasioned a storm of popular indignation.


PAGE 27

_Admiral Keppel ... Vice Admiral Sir Hugh Palliser._ Augustus Keppel
(1725-1786), second son of the second Earl of Albemarle; M.P. for
Windsor; Admiral of the Blue and Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet,
1778; cr. Viscount Keppel, 1782. Sir Hugh Palliser (1723-1796), first
Baronet; M.P. for Scarborough and a Lord of the Admiralty; Vice-Admiral
of the Blue, 1778.

The allusions are to the indecisive action off Ushant between the Channel
fleet under Keppel, with Palliser as third in command, and the Brest
fleet under D’Orvilliers, 27 July 1778; see Introduction, p. 10. On the
third day of the session an altercation broke out in the House of Commons
between the two admirals, and a few days later Palliser applied to his
colleagues at the Admiralty Board for a court-martial on Keppel. After
a protracted trial the court declared Palliser’s charges “malicious
and ill-founded.” This verdict so delighted the populace that street
riots ensued in which the Admiralty was attacked and Palliser’s house
in Pall-Mall was gutted. Palliser was obliged to resign all his public
appointments. See Sir G. O. Trevelyan, _George the Third and Charles
James Fox: The Concluding Part of the American Revolution_, New York,
1912-14, I, ch. v.

_Philip Stevens, Esq._ Philip Stephens (1723-1809), M.P. for Sandwich and
First Secretary to the Admiralty; cr. a baronet, 1795.


PAGE 28

_Mr. George Sutton._ George Manners-Sutton (1751-1804), nephew of the
famous Marquis of Granby; M.P. for Newark.

_Mr. Welbore Ellis._ Welbore Ellis (1713-1802), M.P. for Weymouth
and Treasurer of the Navy; cr. Baron Mendip of Mendip, 1794; see
Introduction, p. 12.


PAGE 29

_David Hartly, Esq._ David Hartley the younger (1732-1813), son of the
philosopher; M.P. for Kingston-upon-Hull; published _Letters on the
American War_, 1777-79, which critically reviewed the history of British
colonial policy; friend and correspondent of Franklin (whose letters
he sometimes read in the House of Commons); British plenipotentiary at
Paris to negotiate peace with America, 1783. He was the Cassandra of the
House and a tireless advocate of peace, but his long-windedness made
him disliked. In _The Abbey of Kilkhampton_, 1780, Sir Herbert Croft’s
satirical garland of epitaphs, Hartley’s epitaph reads as follows (Part
II, p. 124):

                               Here rests,
                If we may trust the Silence of his Grave,
                           D.... H....y, Esq.
          His abilities were the Subject of Admiration, and the
             public Utility was the generous Object they had
                                in view,
                        But⸺he was _troublesome_.

_Mr. Bamber Gascoyne._ Bamber Gascoyne (1725-1791), M.P. for Truro and
a Lord of Trade and Plantations. Of this footnote and the speech by
Hartley, _The London Magazine_ observed:

    The description of a certain fat member heading the dinner
    troop and drawing them out of the house, upon a dry,
    metaphysical, long winded speaker getting up, is truly
    characteristic; and strangers frequenting the gallery may
    congratulate themselves on this happy stroke, for it has partly
    silenced the tedious declaimer, who never considered that if
    each speaker claimed the same right, to pay no regard to time,
    a whole session might be passed in adjourned debates from
    _three_ in the afternoon to _three_ in the morning, day after
    day (XLVII, 566).

_Sir John Irwin._ Sir John Irwin (1728-1788), K.B.; M.P. for East
Grinstead; Major-General and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; famous for
his sartorial elegance and convivial habits.

_Mr. Selwyn._ George Augustus Selwyn (1719-1791), M.P. for Gloucester;
the celebrated wit and club-man. Though he sat in Parliament for about
thirty years, Selwyn was notoriously apathetic towards politics. But
since he returned two members besides himself, and always woke up in time
to give his vote for the ministers when a division was called, Selwyn was
amply rewarded by successive administrations. He was, wrote Sir George
Otto Trevelyan,

    at one and the same time surveyor-general of crown lands—which
    he never surveyed—registrar in chancery at Barbadoes—which he
    never visited—and surveyor of the meltings and clerk of the
    irons in the mint—where he showed himself once a week in order
    to eat a dinner which he ordered, but for which the nation paid
    (_The Early History of Charles James Fox_, New York, 1881, pp.
    94-95).

_his Honour Mr. Brudenell._ James Brudenell (1725-1811), second son of
the third Earl of Cardigan; M.P. for Marlborough; cr. Baron Brudenell of
Deene, 1780; succeeded his brother as fifth Earl of Cardigan, 1790.


PAGE 30

_Mr. Wilkes._ John Wilkes (1727-1797), M.P. for Middlesex; the radical
politician and hero of the London populace. He had a reputation for
facetious wit, and he made a practice of sending his speeches in advance
to the newspapers. Wilkes was another, like Fox and Burke, who enjoyed
Tickell’s anticipation of his speech. Boswell reported Wilkes as saying
to Tickell in April 1779: “Much obliged for your speech for me. If you’ll
make me another for next session, I’ll be damn’d if I don’t speak it”
(_Private Papers of James Boswell_, XIII, 231).

_Here Sir Grey Cooper caught at a pen._ Sir Grey Cooper (1726?-1801),
third Baronet; M.P. for Saltash and a Secretary of the Treasury. The
allusion is to Lord North’s habit of sleeping through Whig speeches and
answering them from the notes of his favorite secretary. The following
lines are from _The London Magazine_, XLVIII, 1779, 186:

    Whilst B[ur]ke and B[arr]é strain their throats
    The mild SIR GREY is taking notes;
    And, wise as owl, is seen _composing_,
    For the good Premier, who is _dozing_:
    Whilst to each patriot’s loudest roar
    N[or]th answers with a well-tim’d _snore_.
    Till by some shriller trebles vex’d,
    He discants on the _good Knight’s_ text.

_magic plates._ Hartley had invented an arrangement of thin iron strips
to be placed as a lining under floors and above ceilings to prevent fire.
An anonymous handbill of four quarto pages, dated July 1776 and called
_An Account of Some Experiments Made with the Fire-Plates, Together
with a Description of the Manner of Application, and an Estimate of the
Expence_, contains newspaper accounts of unsuccessful attempts to burn a
house near Reading equipped with Hartley’s plates.


PAGE 31

_the Noble Lord, who presided in the American department._ George
Sackville Germain (1716-1785), called Lord George Germain, third son
of the first Duke of Dorset; M.P. for East Grinstead and Secretary of
State for Colonies; cr. Viscount Sackville, 1782. As minister in charge
of military operations in America, Germain bore the brunt of frequent
and savage onslaughts by Opposition. His famous Kentish holiday, which
delayed dispatches to Sir William Howe in New York, was long supposed
to have caused Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga; Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice,
_Life of William, Earl of Shelburne_, 1875-76, I, 358-359; but cf. Troyer
Steele Anderson, _The Command of the Howe Brothers during the American
Revolution_, New York, 1936, ch. xiv. Germain’s resignation was forced in
January 1782, two months before North’s government fell.

_the Earl of Bute._ John Stuart (1713-1792), third Earl of Bute; favorite
of George III in the early years of the reign; First Lord of the
Treasury, 1762-63, but forced to resign on account of his unpopularity,
to which the anti-Scots propaganda of Wilkes largely contributed. Lord
North was popularly regarded as the political heir of Lord Bute.


PAGE 32

_one North Briton._ George Johnstone; see last note on this page.

_Mr. Laurens._ Henry Laurens (1724-1792), of South Carolina; President of
Congress, 1777-78. The quoted phrases that follow are from Johnstone’s
letter to Laurens, 10 June 1778, soliciting a private interview. This
letter, with Laurens’ answer, was promptly made public by Congress.

_Ethan Allen._ Ethan Allen (1738-1789), famous for his partisan exploits
as leader of the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont; surprised and took
Fort Ticonderoga, May 1775; a captive in England, Canada, and New York,
September 1775-May 1778; author of a deistic treatise, _Reason the Only
Oracle of Man_, Bennington, Vermont, 1784.

_Dr. Adam Ferguson._ Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), LL.D.; Professor of
Pneumatics and Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh; secretary
to the British commissioners to treat with America, 1778.

_Sir John Dalrymple._ Sir John Dalrymple (1726-1810), fourth Baronet;
author of the Tory _Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland_. _From the
Dissolution of the Last Parliament of Charles II until the Sea-Battle
off La Hogue_, 1771, the design of which (according to Horace Walpole)
was “to degrade & blacken the brightest names in English Story, & more
particularly the Protomartyrs of the Revolution, Lord Russel & Algernon
Sydney” (_Satirical Poems Published Anonymously by William Mason with
Notes by Horace Walpole_, ed. Paget Toynbee, Oxford, 1926, p. 115).

_the great Sidney._ Algernon Sidney (1622-1683), son of the second Earl
of Leicester; tried before Jeffreys and executed, December 1683, for
complicity in the Rye House Plot to murder Charles II and the Duke of
York.

_Governor Johnson._ George Johnstone (1730-1787), M.P. for Appleby;
formerly Governor of West Florida; one of North’s commissioners to treat
with America; see Introduction, p. 9. His conduct as commissioner was
quarrelsome, clumsy, and ineffectual; Carl Van Doren, _Secret History of
the American Revolution_, New York, 1941, pp. 96-104. Of his speech on
the opening day of the session Walpole reported:

    Governor Johnston made a strange, unintelligible speech (it
    was impossible for him to make a clear one without condemning
    himself); he endeavoured to wipe off some of his attempt to
    bribe some of the Congress, yet owned at much as he denied,
    condemned and approved the march to Philadelphia, and rather
    insinuated blame on Keppel than on anybody else. He was soon
    after called upon in several newspapers to say, whether he did
    not still retain his pay of Commissioner, though he had so long
    quitted the office. He made no answer—consequently was by that
    sinecure retained by the Court (_Last Journals_, II, 209).


PAGE 33

_Mons. D’Estaign._ Jean-Baptiste-Charles-Henri-Hector, Comte d’Estaing
(1729-1794), French admiral in command in American waters, 1778-80.

_a noble Lord opposite to me._ Richard, Lord Howe; see below, note to p.
34.

_D’Estaign’s fleet ought to have been attacked._ In August Howe pursued
D’Estaing to Newport, but a storm prevented an engagement.


PAGE 34

_Byron’s squadron._ John Byron (1723-1786), Vice-Admiral; sailed from
Plymouth with a squadron in pursuit of D’Estaing, June 1778; his ships
joined Howe’s fleet piecemeal during the summer.

_Lord Howe._ Richard Howe (1726-1799), fourth Viscount Howe in the
peerage of Ireland; M.P. for Dartmouth; Vice-Admiral; Commander-in-Chief
on the North American station, 1776-78; resigned his command because of
discontent with the ministry, September 1778; cr. an English peer, 1782,
and Earl Howe, 1788.

_Mr. Rigby._ Richard Rigby (1722-1788), M.P. for Tavistock and Paymaster
of the Forces. Reputed to have derived immense profits from his office
during the American war, Rigby served as the model for Disraeli’s corrupt
politician of the same name in _Coningsby_, 1844.


PAGE 35

_Mr. T. Townsend._ Thomas Townshend (1733-1800), nephew of the third
Viscount Townshend; M.P. for Whitchurch, 1754-83; cr. Baron Sydney of
Chislehurst, 1783, and Viscount Sydney, 1789, the city in Australia
being named for him. He was one of the most voluble and pertinacious
speakers in debates. His contemptuous reference in the House of Commons
to Johnson’s pension earned Townshend a passing glance in Goldsmith’s
_Retaliation_, where Burke is said to be,

    Though fraught with all learning, yet straining his throat
    To persuade Tommy Townshend to lend him a vote.


PAGE 36

_the blunders of Administration, with respect to Falkland’s Islands, &c._
Townshend views with alarm an assortment of the events, momentous and
trivial, that had agitated the public mind in the preceding decade.

As to _Falkland’s Islands_, west of the southern tip of South America, a
dispute over their possession nearly brought on war between Great Britain
and Spain in 1770-71. After a display of force by Spain and a demand for
restitution by the British government, diplomatic exchanges resulted in
a conciliation that was unpopular in England (_The Annual Register_ for
1771, “History of Europe,” chs. i-v). At the request of the ministers,
Dr. Johnson wrote a spirited defence of their conduct, _Thoughts on the
Late Transactions respecting Falkland’s Islands_, 1771.

The _Middlesex Election_ was a remarkable exploit in the career of John
Wilkes, who in 1768 returned from France still an outlaw for his offence
in _North Briton_ No. 45, and was elected to Parliament for the county
of Middlesex. Expelled before he could take his seat, he was thrice
re-elected and as many times expelled. After his fourth victory at the
polls Parliament declared his opponent, the ministerial candidate,
duly elected. This breach of electoral rights led to street-rioting,
protracted debates in and out of Parliament, and, eventually, the
formation of a Radical party. See Horace Bleackley, _Life of John
Wilkes_, 1917, chs. xii-xiii.

The revolt of _Corsica_ under Pasquale Paoli against the French, who had
purchased the island from Genoa in 1768, won wide public sympathy in
England. The leading advocate of British intervention in favor of the
Corsicans was James Boswell. See Chauncey Brewster Tinker, _Nature’s
Simple Plan_, Princeton, 1922, ch. ii.

The _massacre in St. George’s Fields_, 10 May 1768, occurred when a crowd
of London citizens waiting for Wilkes to attend the opening of Parliament
taunted a detachment of foot-guards into firing on them. Several persons
were killed and about a dozen wounded. This “massacre” was the forerunner
and partly the inspiration of that in King Street, Boston, two years
later.

_Mr. Horne’s imprisonment_ resulted from the zeal of that radical parson
in the cause of America. The Rev. John Horne (1736-1812), afterwards
Horne Tooke, wrote and circulated an advertisement for the Constitutional
Society, June 1775, stating that 100_l._ was to be raised for “the
relief of the widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved American
fellow-subjects, who, faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring
death to slavery, were, for that reason only, inhumanly murdered by the
king’s troops” at Lexington and Concord on the 19th of April. In July
1777 Horne was brought to trial before Lord Mansfield, found guilty,
and in November sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 200_l._
(_The Annual Register_ for 1777, “Appendix to the Chronicle,” pp.
234-245).

The _fatal example of the Justitia_ is an allusion to the _Justitia_
hulk, a convict-ship stationed at Woolwich by an act of 1776 for the
purpose of dredging the Thames.

The _frequent exhibition of the Beggar’s Opera_ evidently alludes to
remarks by Townshend that had excited mirth in a debate on a bill for
licensing a play-house in Birmingham, 29 April 1777. Townshend opposed
the bill because, he said,

    He had heard from good authority that the theatre licensed at
    Manchester, in consequence of a similar application, had done
    a great deal of mischief already: nor could it be wondered
    at, if we consider what pieces are sometimes represented,
    which, not being new, are not subject to the controul of the
    Lord Chamberlain: the Beggar’s Opera, for instance, which had
    brought more unhappy people to the gallows, than any one thing
    he could name. As to the country gentlemen, surely this was
    not such an age of domestic retirement, but what they might
    find sufficient amusement in visiting their neighbours in the
    summer, without wanting to frequent a theatre.... Considering,
    then, the circumstances of Birmingham as a great manufacturing
    and trading town, depending on the industry and frugality of
    the poorer class of people, he was of opinion it would be
    highly improper to license any theatre there (_Parliamentary
    History_, XIX, 202).

_Is Omiah to pay us another visit?_ Omiah or Omai, a native of Otaheite
(Tahiti), was brought to England in 1774 by Captain Tobias Furneaux of
the _Adventure_. As the first South Sea Islander ever seen in England,
Omiah made a stir in fashionable and literary society, sat for his
portrait to the most eminent artists, and was the subject of countless
newspaper paragraphs and several pamphlet poems. There are well-known
lines by Cowper on Omiah in the first book of _The Task_, 1785:

    The dream is past; and thou hast found again
    Thy cocoas and bananas, palms and yams,
    And homestall thatch’d with leaves. But hast thou found
    Their former charms? And, having seen our state,
    Our palaces, our ladies, and our pomp
    Of equipage, our gardens, and our sports,
    And heard our music; are thy simple friends,
    Thy simple fare, and all thy plain delights,
    As dear to thee as once?

_Sir Harry Clinton._ Sir Henry Clinton (1738?-1795), K.B.; Major-General;
succeeded Sir William Howe as Commander-in-Chief in America, May 1778.


PAGE 37

_Mr. Vyner._ Robert Vyner (1717-1799), M.P. for Lincoln. He was, said
Nathaniel Wraxall, a gentleman of large property in Lincolnshire,
whose person suggested “the portraits of ‘Hudibras’” (_Historical and
Posthumous Memoirs ... 1772-1784_, ed. H. B. Wheatley, 1884, V, 203).

_his offer of fifteen shillings in the pound._ In a debate on the budget,
3 May 1775, Vyner defended the motives of the country gentlemen in
supporting the ministers’ coercive American policy. He said, in part:

    In support of such a cause ... he was willing to pay not
    only 4s. but 14s. in the pound: and as he entertained not a
    single doubt but we should prevail in the contest, we ought to
    oblige America to pay the expence she had wantonly put us to,
    and which would likewise enable us to bring back our quondam
    peace establishment, that of a land-tax of 2s. in the pound
    (_Parliamentary History_, XVIII, 625).

_a great statesman had once boasted, &c._ William Pitt the elder, during
the Seven Years’ War.

_Mr. Van._ Charles Van, prior to his death, in April 1778, M.P. for
Brecon.


PAGE 38

_Hon. T. Luttrel._ Temple Simon Luttrell (d. 1803), third son of the
first Earl of Carhampton; M.P. for Milborne Port. A florid orator,
Luttrell was always pertinacious in debates on naval affairs. Tickell’s
parody perhaps reflects an interminable speech on the state of the
navy, 11 March 1778, in which Luttrell described the timber used for
ship-repairs as so “singularly spungy and porous” that “your seamen ...
are frequently set afloat in their hammocks, from the water soaking
in, over-head, through the planks,” related an instance of a seaman’s
driving his fist, “without much pain to his knuckles,” through the hull
of a man-of-war, and entered into a detail of the twenty-four invasions
of Great Britain and Ireland since the Norman Conquest (_Parliamentary
History_, XIX, 874-892).

_the noble Earl who is now at the head of that department._ John Montagu
(1718-1792), fourth Earl of Sandwich; First Lord of the Admiralty.
Sandwich was notorious for the dissoluteness of his private life.


PAGE 40

_Regattaites._ Not a tribe or nation, but participants in the summer
regattas on the Thames. In _The Annual Register_ for 1775 appears “Some
Account of the new Entertainment, called a _Regatta_, introduced from
_Venice_ into _England_, in the Course of the Year 1775,” from which the
following sentences are extracted:

    Before five o’clock, Westminster bridge was covered with
    spectators, in carriages and on foot, and men even placed
    themselves in the bodies of the lamp-irons. Plans of the
    regatta were sold from a shilling to a penny each, and songs
    on the occasion sung, in which _Regatta_ was the rhyme for
    _Ranelagh_, and _Royal Family_ echoed to _Liberty_.... Before
    six o’clock it was a perfect fair on both sides the water, and
    bad liquor, with short measure, was plentifully retailed....
    The Thames was now a floating town. All the cutters,
    sailing-boats, &c. in short, every thing, from the dung-barge
    to the wherry, was in motion (“Appendix to the Chronicle,” pp.
    216, 217).

_the Captain of the Licorne._ The _Licorne_ frigate, encountered
and detained by Admiral Keppel on the 17th of June, yielded Keppel
information respecting the strength of the French fleet.

_the wretched deficiency in our late naval equipments._ War-profiteering
is not of recent origin; in the Eighteenth Century the loose organization
of finance and supply in both services gave large opportunities to
contractors and commissaries. “You must not think of persuading us that
you are no gainer,” Lord Loudoun remarked to Benjamin Franklin when the
latter sought reimbursement for outlays in connection with Braddock’s
expedition in 1755; “we understand better those affairs, and know that
every one concerned in supplying the army finds means, in the doing
it, to fill his own pockets” (Franklin, _Writings_, ed. A. H. Smyth,
New York, 1905-07, I, 430). Satirists frequently exposed this form of
parasitism. Samuel Foote produced a comedy called _The Commissary_ in
1765. In Sheridan’s _The Camp_, 1778, the commissary Gage supplied a
regiment with lime (which he dug himself, at no expense) instead of
hair-powder. It did very well, he reported, while the weather was fine,
but when a shower came up the troops’ heads were all slacked in an
instant. “I stood a near chance of being tied up to the halberts; but I
excused myself by saying, they looked only like raw recruits before; but
now they appeared like old veterans of service” (I, i).


PAGE 42

_Mr. Penton._ Henry Penton (1736-1812), M.P. for Winchester and a Lord of
the Admiralty.

_a certain Great Personage._ On their tour of the militia camps at
Winchester and Salisbury in September, the King and Queen “alighted at
Mr. Penton’s house [in Winchester], where they were waited on by the
Mayor and Corporation” (_The Annual Register_ for 1778, “Appendix to the
Chronicle,” p. 235).

_Mr. Burke._ Edmund Burke (1729-1797), M.P. for Bristol. The dominant
theme of Burke’s speech, “the ruin of this declining empire” was a
favorite one among anti-ministerial orators, pamphleteers, and poets
during the Revolution. Soon after the appearance, in 1781, of the second
and third volumes of Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, Thomas Powys, M.P. for
Northamptonshire, read extracts from that work in a debate on a motion
for putting an end to the American war. Powys ventured to say that the
description of Rome in the Fifth Century by Mr. Gibbon,

    whose enrolment in the administration was the only accession of
    which his Majesty’s ministers had to boast, ... was so strong,
    so expressive, so applicable, that though it was said to belong
    to Rome, he could not help thinking that it alluded to a nearer
    country, and a nearer period (_Parliamentary History_, XXII,
    805).


PAGE 43

_the pageantry of domestic warfare._ An allusion to the vogue of the
militia encampments as places of fashionable resort.

_important depredations at—Martha’s Island._ Early in September
Major-General Grey, under orders from Sir Henry Clinton, invested
Martha’s Vineyard and carried off “a considerable and most desirable
contribution, consisting of 10,000 sheep, and 300 oxen, for the public
service at New York” (_The Annual Register_ for 1779, “History of
Europe,” p. 2).


PAGE 45

_Mr Dunning._ John Dunning (1731-1783), M.P. for Calne; the leading Whig
lawyer in the House of Commons; cr. Baron Ashburton of Ashburton, 1782.


PAGE 46

_Mr. Sollicitor-General._ James Wallace (d. 1783), M.P. for Horsham;
succeeded Wedderburn as Solicitor-General, June 1778.


PAGE 47

_Mr Fox._ Charles James Fox (1749-1806), third son of the first Baron
Holland; M.P. for Malmesbury and leader of the Opposition in the House
of Commons. Either out of personal regard for Fox or at the request of
Lord North, Tickell does not burlesque Fox’s oratory. It is stated in the
review of _Anticipation_ in _The Town and Country Magazine_ that Fox’s
speech actually “was noticed by that gentleman in the house, who, at the
same time, lamented his incapacity of making so good an harangue upon the
occasion” (XI, 1779, 45). According to a note in Horace Walpole’s copy of
_Anticipation_, “Charles Fox said, ‘he has anticipated many things I have
intended to say, but I shall say them nevertheless.’”


PAGE 48

_General Lee._ Charles Lee (1731-1782), Lieutenant-Colonel in the British
army; appointed Major-General by Congress, 1775; court-martialed and
suspended from service for disobedience to orders and misbehavior before
the enemy during the battle of Monmouth Court House, June 1778.


PAGE 49

_the Prince of Brunswick._ Either Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick
(1721-1792), Commander of the English and Hanoverian forces in the Seven
Years’ War; or his nephew, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand (1735-1806), Hereditary
Prince of Brunswick, who commanded a division in his uncle’s army.
Clinton served in Germany, 1760-63, acting for a time as aide-de-camp to
the Hereditary Prince.

_the noble Lord who planned that expedition._ Lord George Germain; see
above, note to p. 31.


PAGE 50

_Monsieur Vaugelin._ Not further identified. The name is unusual and may
be misspelled.

_Colonel Tufnell._ George Foster Tufnell. (1725-1798), M.P. for Beverly
and Colonel of the East Middlesex Militia.


PAGE 51

_their Bavarian contest._ The War of the Bavarian Succession, 1778-79,
occasioned by the extinction of the electoral house of Bavaria upon the
death of Maximilian Joseph.

_Lord North._ Frederick, Lord North (1732-1792), eldest son of the first
Earl of Guilford; M.P. for Banbury; First Lord of the Treasury, 1770-82;
succeeded as second Earl of Guilford, 1790; see Introduction, _passim_.


PAGE 52

_a great Character._ William Pitt, Lord Chatham.


PAGE 58

_Col. Barré._ Isaac Barré (1726-1802), M.P. for Calne. Barré, who had
served with Wolfe in America, was a devoted friend of the colonists and
in Parliament was regarded as a master of invective and the special
antagonist of Lord North. North had his revenge in _Anticipation_; see
Introduction, p. 12.

_the Indians, headed by Col. Butler, began their rapine in Cherry
Valley._ John Butler (1725-1796), Indian agent under the Johnsons in the
Mohawk Valley; Lieutenant-Colonel of Militia, 1768; Major in command
of Butler’s Rangers, 1777. Under his leadership parties of Loyalists
and their Indian allies of the Six Nations systematically harried the
back settlements in New York and Pennsylvania during the Revolution.
Their raids reached a peak of frequency and destructiveness in the early
summer of 1778, the notorious “Wyoming Massacre” occurring 3-4 July.
None of the settlements mentioned by Barré had been attacked at the time
his informant is supposed to have written; but rumors were rife on the
frontier as well as at the Poughkeepsie headquarters of the Continental
Army; and the worst fears of the settlers were realized when Butler’s
son, Captain Walter Butler, together with the Mohawk chief Joseph Brant,
sacked the village of Cherry Valley on the 11th of November. See Howard
Swiggett, _War out of Niagara: Walter Butler and the Tory Rangers_, New
York, 1933, chs. vi-vii.

_Gen. Carlton._ Guy Carleton (1724-1808), Lieutenant-General; Governor of
Quebec, 1775-78; requested his recall because of differences with Lord
George Germain, May 1777; cr. Baron Dorchester of Dorchester (Oxford),
1786.

_Miss Macrea._ Jane MacCrea, daughter of a Tory clergyman residing near
Fort Edward on the upper Hudson, was scalped by a marauding party of
Burgoyne’s Indian allies, 27 July 1777. This incident, about which a mass
of romantic legend soon grew up, proved highly embarrassing to Burgoyne
and the Administration.


PAGE 59

_no Secretary of War in this house._ “Ld Barrington [William Wildman
Barrington (1717-1793), second Viscount] was out of Parliament, and no
successor was then appointed” (note by Horace Walpole in his copy of
_Anticipation_). Barrington, Secretary at War since 1765, had given
notice of his retirement in the previous May; in December Charles
Jenkinson was named his successor.

_Mons. Neckar._ Jacques Necker (1732-1804), Director-General of
Finances in the French government, 1777-81; famous for his fiscal and
administrative reforms.

_Monsieur Bouillé._ The island of Dominica, ceded by France to Great
Britain by the Treaty of Paris, 1763, was retaken, 7 September 1778,
by the French under the command of the Marquis de Bouillé (1739-1800),
Governor of Martinique.

_the Pacte de Famille._ The defensive alliance formed in 1761 among the
Bourbon states of France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies.

_Count Almodovar._ Pedro Jiménez de Góngora, Marquès (later Duque) de
Almodóvar (d. 1794), Spanish Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s,
1778-79.

_Don Francisco Buccarelli._ Spanish Governor of Buenos Aires who ordered
the expedition against the Falkland Islands that led to the surrender
of the English garrison at Port Egmont, June 1770, and aroused great
indignation in England; see above, note to p. 36, on Falkland’s Islands.
Probably a member of the family of Bucareli y Ursúa, of Seville, several
of whom held high military and colonial posts at that period.

_Count Cobentzel._ This may refer either to Johann Philipp, Graf von
Cobenzl (1741-1810), Austrian statesman who drafted the Peace of
Teschen, 1779; or to his cousin, Johann Ludwig Joseph, Graf von Cobenzl
(1753-1809), Austrian Ambassador to the Court of Catherine II, 1779-97.

_Baron Reidesdel._ Joseph Herman, Baron Riedesel (1740-1785), Prussian
diplomat, traveler, and archeologist.

_Duke de Chartres._ Louis-Philippe-Joseph de Bourbon (1747-1793), Duc de
Chartres, son of the Duc d’Orléans, whom he succeeded, 1785; later known
as Philippe Égalité.

_Monsieur de Sartine._ Antoine-Raimond-Jean-Gualbert-Gabriel de Sartine
(1729-1801), Comte d’Alby, French statesman; Lieutenant-General of
Police, 1759-74; Minister of Marine, 1774-80. He was satirized in
Tickell’s _Green Box of Monsieur de Sartine_, 1779; see Bibliography, pp.
88-90.


PAGE 60

_Il alte se volto, &c._ This defies translation. Tickell perhaps
deliberately garbled Barré’s Italian.

_Alderman Oliver’s letter._ Richard Oliver (1734?-1784), Alderman of
Billingsgate Ward and M.P. for the City of London; remembered for his
defiance of the House of Commons in the case of the printer Millar, for
which he was committed to the Tower, 1771. On 6 September 1778 Oliver
wrote a letter, soon published in the papers, declining nomination as
Lord Mayor and quitting his seat in Parliament in view of a prospective
visit to his property in Antigua, W.I., which he feared stood in danger
of seizure by France; _The Annual Register_ for 1778, “Chronicle,” pp.
200-201.

_Mr. H. Stanley._ Hans Stanley (1720?-1780), M.P. for Southampton,
Governor of the Isle of Wight, and Cofferer of the Household. He had
lived for some years in France and was regarded as an authority on the
affairs of that nation.

_Mr. Byng._ George Byng (1735-1789), nephew of the third Viscount
Torrington; M.P. for Wigan. An ardent supporter of Fox, he here acts in
the role of party whip.

_Mr. Robinson._ John Robinson (1727-1802), M.P. for Harwich and a
Secretary of the Treasury. A favorite of George III’s, Robinson
managed the Treasury boroughs and served as the King’s personal agent
in Parliament. In _The Castle of Infamy_, 1780, an anonymous satirist
describes

                        how Rob[in]son’s quick Eye
    Controll’d the _pension’d, plac’d_, expectant Fry....
    At his shrewd Look, his pregnant Nod, or Wink,
    The Spirits of all Parties rise or sink.


PAGE 61

_the Fermeurs Generaux._ The _Fermiers-Généraux_ were the body of French
officials who, under the _Ancien Régime_, leased as a concession the
collection of taxes.

_Gen. Conway._ Henry Seymour Conway (1721-1795), second son of the first
Baron Conway; M.P. for Bury St. Edmunds; General; Governor of Jersey;
cousin and correspondent of Horace Walpole.


PAGE 62

_Admiral Barrington._ Samuel Barrington (1729-1800), fifth son of the
first Viscount Barrington; Rear-Admiral; Commander-in-Chief in the West
Indies until superseded by Byron in January 1779.

_Count Broglio._ Victor-François, Duc de Broglie (1718-1804), Marshal of
France; appointed Commander-in-Chief on the Coasts on the Ocean, May 1778.

_Mr Sawbridge._ John Sawbridge (1732?-1795), Radical M.P. for the City of
London; an intimate of John Wilkes’, and active in founding the Society
of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.

_Sister Macauly._ Catharine Sawbridge Macaulay (1731-1791), afterwards
Mrs. Graham, sister of the foregoing; republican bluestocking; wrote _The
History of England from the Accession of James I to That of the Brunswick
Line_, 1763-83, much praised and damned in its day for its republicanism;
visited America and stopped with Washington for ten days, 1785. Dr.
Johnson took satisfaction in having exposed her principles by once
desiring her to invite her footman to sit at table with her; _Boswell’s
Johnson_, ed. Hill and Powell, I, 447.

_Warley-Common._ In Essex, where one of the militia camps was situated.


PAGE 63

_a majority of 261 to 148._ The motion for the amendment to the address
was rejected on the opening day of the session by a vote of 226 to 107,
an indication that the House was less crowded than had been expected.

_Mr Charles Townshend._ Charles Townshend (1728-1810), nephew of the
third Viscount Townshend; M.P. for Yarmouth; cr. Baron Bayning of Foxley,
1797.

_Mr Charles Turner._ Charles Turner (1726?-1803), M.P. for York; cr. a
baronet, 1782. He was a staunch Whig and according to Nathaniel Wraxall
“one of the most eccentric men who ever sat in Parliament” (_Historical
and Posthumous Memoirs_, II, 267).




BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TICKELL’S WRITINGS




BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TICKELL’S WRITINGS


The entries in this bibliography, with a few necessary exceptions, are
arranged as follows:

    _a._ a transcript of the text of the title-page of the first
    edition;

    _b._ a collation of the first edition by pages;

    _c._ locations of copies of the first edition that I have used
    and have had reproduced or consulted for me;

    _d._ a list of later editions, variant issues, and reprints.

Under _c_ a complete census has not been attempted, and not every copy
located may be assumed to be perfect. Under _d_ sufficient information
is given to identify the various editions, but differences in title,
text, and collation are not recorded unless they are essential for
identification. To give complete descriptions of all the issues of
Tickell’s writings would require from two to three times the space of the
present bibliography.

The symbols for locations should be expanded thus: BA = Boston Athenæum,
BM = British Museum, BP = Boston Public Library, C = Library of Congress,
HC = Harvard College Library, HEH = Henry E. Huntington Library, JCB =
John Carter Brown Library, LHB = the present editor, NEWB = Newberry
Library, NYP = New York Public Library, WLC = William L. Clements
Library, YU = Yale University Library.

As stated earlier, the place of publication, unless otherwise indicated,
is London.


i

The Project. A Poem. Dedicated to Dean Tucker. Verum, ubi, tempestas, et
cæli mobilis humor Mutavêre vias, et Jupiter uvidus Austris Densat erant
quæ rara modo, et quæ densa, relaxat; Vertuntur species animorum;⸺Virgil.
London: Printed for T. Becket, Adelphi, in the Strand. M DCC LXXVIII.

4to. P. [i], title, verso blank; pp. [iii—iv], “Dedication”; pp. [1]-12,
text.

Copies: BM, HC, LHB.

Second, Third, and Fourth Editions, Becket, 1778. Fifth Edition, Becket,
1779. Sixth Edition, Becket, 1780. Reprinted in _The New Foundling
Hospital for Wit.... A New Edition.... In Six Volumes_, J. Debrett,
1786, I, 307-317. Reprinted in _Bell’s Classical Arrangement of Fugitive
Poetry_, British Library, 1789-94, IV, [92]-101.


ii

The Wreath of Fashion, or, the Art of Sentimental Poetry. ⸺ Demetri, teq;
Tigelli, Discipularum inter jubeo plorare cathedras. Horace. London:
Printed for T. Becket, Adelphi, in the Strand. M DCC LXXVIII. [Price One
Shilling.]

4to. P. [i], title, verso blank; pp. [iii]-iv, “Advertisement”; pp.
[1]-14, text; p. [15], advertisement of _The Project_, Second Edition,
verso blank.

Copies: BM, HC, LHB.

Second, Third, and Fourth Editions, Becket, 1778. Fifth Edition, Becket,
1778 or 1779 (I have traced no copy). Sixth Edition, Becket, 1780.
Dublin: Wm. Wilson, 1779. Reprinted in _The New Foundling Hospital for
Wit.... A New Edition.... In Six Volumes_, J. Debrett, 1786, I, 295-306.
Reprinted in _Bell’s Classical Arrangement of Fugitive Poetry_, British
Library, 1789-94, V, [76]-85. Reprinted in _The School for Satire: or, A
Collection of Modern Satirical Poems Written during the Present Reign_,
Jacques and Co., 1801 (sometimes 1802), pp. 143-159.


iii

Prologue to the Camp. Written by Richard Tickell, Esq.

This entry is from _The London Chronicle_, 23 October 1778. Though
printed in several magazines at the time of the production, the Prologue
seems first to have accompanied the text of the play in John Murray’s
edition of Sheridan’s _Works_, 1821, II, 161-162.

    _The Camp_, “a musical entertainment,” was first performed 15
    October 1778, at Drury Lane Theatre; it was first printed,
    without publisher’s name, London, 1795. Sheridan’s authorship
    was universally accepted by the press of the time and in the
    early biographical notices of Sheridan; see R. Crompton Rhodes’
    edition of Sheridan’s _Plays and Poems_, New York, 1929, II,
    271. The first to question it was Tate Wilkinson, who asserted
    that Sheridan “never wrote a line” of this “catchpenny for
    the time” (_The Wandering Patentee_, York, 1795, IV, 124).
    Later, Thomas Moore likewise thought _The Camp_ “unworthy” of
    Sheridan’s genius and declared, on the evidence of a rough copy
    in Tickell’s hand, that Tickell was the author (_Sheridan_, 2nd
    ed., 1825, I, 264). Following Moore, some editors have omitted
    it from editions of Sheridan. Library catalogues and recent
    bibliographies, apparently following Walter Sichel (_Sheridan_,
    I, 443), whose statements on these matters are sometimes
    merely conjectures, generally assign _The Camp_ to Tickell as
    “revised” by Sheridan.

    A rough copy in Tickell’s hand is very inconclusive evidence of
    his authorship. In view of known “catchpenny” work by Sheridan,
    the alleged inferiority of _The Camp_ is still less conclusive.
    Tickell may of course have contributed to the dialogue, as he
    later did in many of the Drury Lane productions. But there are
    no adequate grounds for denying the contemporary attribution to
    Sheridan.


iv

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.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank;
pp. [v]-vi, “Advertisement”; p. [vii], “The Gentlemen trading to the
East-Indies ...,” verso blank; pp. [1]-74, text. (The last leaf of the
text is signed L, and it is likely that a blank leaf should follow as
the conjugate. In all the copies I have seen and in all but one of those
consulted for me by librarians, this final leaf is wanting. Miss Anne
S. Pratt reports a copy in the Mason-Franklin Collection at Yale that,
though closely bound, appears to have been issued with this final blank
leaf.)

Copies: BA, BP, C, HC, HEH, JCB, NEWB, NYP, WLC, YU. Sabin #95788.

Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Editions,
Becket, 1778. Also a variant “Second Edition,” with the same imprint
and date but with a different number of blanks in the words containing
deleted letters in the title and with different collation: p. [i], title,
verso blank; pp. [iii]-iv, “Advertisement”; pp. [5]-67, text; p. [68],
blank. Tenth Edition, Becket, 1780. A New Edition, Becket, 1794. Dublin:
Byrn and Son, 1778. Philadelphia: T. Bradford, 1779; called “The Sixth
Edition.” New York: James Rivington, 1779 (no copy traced; announced as
published in Rivington’s _Royal Gazette_, 17 March). Reprinted in _The
Pamphleteer_; _Dedicated to Both Houses of Parliament_, A. J. Valpy, XIX,
1822, [309]-345.

    Of the numerous continuations and imitations that appeared
    in the next few years, none except _Common-Place Arguments_,
    1780 (no. viii, below), is by Tickell. _Opposition Mornings:
    with Betty’s Remarks_, J. Wilkie, 1779, is assigned to him in
    Halkett and Laing (_Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous
    Literature_, new ed., Edinburgh, 1926-34, IV, 265), in Sabin
    (#95797), and in library catalogues generally. Not made by
    earlier bibliographers, this attribution is probably based on a
    conjecture in _The Monthly Review_ that _Opposition Mornings_
    might be an inferior work by Tickell (LX, 1779, 473). The tract
    makes use of several of Tickell’s satirical devices of the kind
    easily borrowed. But there is no good evidence that he wrote
    it, and the lack of a spark of wit in the whole performance is
    strong evidence to the contrary.


v

La Cassette Verte de Monsieur de Sartine, Trouvée chez Mademoiselle Du
Thé. Ipse dolos tecti ambagesque resolvit. Virgil. (Cinquième Edition
revue & corrigée sur celles de Leipsic & d’Amsterdam.) A La Haye: Chez la
Veuve Whiskerfeld, in de Platte Borze by de Vrydagmerkt. M,DCC,LXX,IX.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank;
pp. [1]-4, “Avis au Lecteur”; p. [5], “Avant Propos,” verso blank; pp.
[7]-71, text; p. [72], blank.

Copies: HEH, NYP, YU. Sabin #95793.

Sixième Edition, with identical title (except for change in number of
edition), identical imprint and date; the text is set largely from the
same type but extended by new matter to p. 76, and there is no blank page
at the end. The Cinquième Edition described above may be safely regarded
as the _editio princeps_; there were, however, at least three variant
issues, two of which are easily confused with the original edition. One
of these corresponds exactly in imprint, pagination, and signatures with
the regular Cinquième Edition but is set from different type, has a
different title-page border, and uses less elaborate printer’s ornaments
throughout; it may be at once distinguished from the original by the fact
that the words “Monsieur de Sartine” in the title are printed, not in red
as in the original, but in black; copies in BA, NYP. A second variant has
the same imprint as the regular Cinquième Edition, but the title-page
has a still different border, no rubrication, and the word “Cinquième”
is erroneously printed with an acute instead of a grave accent; the
pagination is the same as that of the regular Cinquième Edition, but
the variant is a smaller octavo, the type is not the same, nor are the
signatures (regular: []², B-K⁴; variant: []², B-E⁸, F⁴); copies in NYP,
YU. There is, finally, in the Yale University Library an issue called
the “Cinquieme [_sic_] édition,” with a title-page border different from
any in the preceding issues, with the same pagination as the regular
Cinquième Edition, but from different type, with signatures[]¹, B⁸, C-I⁴
(half-title doubtless wanting), and with the puzzling date “M. DCC.
LXXXII.”

    _La Cassette verte_ is a political and bibliographical hoax.
    The text purports to be secret papers found in a dispatch-box
    belonging to M. de Sartine, French Minister of Marine. (On
    Mademoiselle Du Thé, i.e., Rosalie Duthé, a Parisian courtesan
    who had recently visited England, see Pierre Larousse,
    _Grand dictionnaire ... du XIXᵉ siècle_, Paris, 1866-90,
    VI, 1447-1448.) The papers expose the motives of the French
    government in aiding the United States and satirize Franklin’s
    activities in Paris, English sympathizers with the American
    cause, and the like. A letter supposedly written by one of
    Sartine’s agents in London provides a gloss on certain passages
    in _Anticipation_. I quote from the English version (no. vi,
    below):

      Alas! in these times, a spy’s office here is almost a sinecure:
      a dozen newspapers in the morning, and as many fresh ones
      every evening, rob us of all our business: a secret even in
      private affairs is a prodigy in London; but as to public
      matters, it is the patriot’s boast, that a free constitution
      abhors secrecy: and so indeed it seems; for, not only the
      minutest accounts of the army, the navy, and the taxes, but
      the minister’s letters, official instructions, and in short,
      every paper, the disclosure of which may serve opposition, and
      tend to prejudice the ministers by a premature discovery of
      their plans, are perpetually called for, and must lie on the
      tables of Parliament; where, as soon as they are once brought,
      their contents one way or other get into print; consequently,
      ... the French ministers are not only as much in possession of
      them as the English, but study them far more attentively, and
      to ten times more advantage than _they_ do who called for their
      disclosure in England⸺All this is bad encouragement to a spy at
      London.

    Bibliographically, the pamphlet raises questions that cannot be
    answered with complete certainty. How is the number of variant
    issues to be accounted for, and what are their relations to the
    _editio princeps_? The satire was originally written by Tickell
    in English and was then translated into bad French to circulate
    on the Continent as propaganda against the Franco-American
    alliance (see the extract from _The Monthly Review_ under the
    next entry, and that from Bachaumont’s _Mémoires_ further on in
    the present entry). However, the French version, purporting to
    be the “Cinquième Edition,” published “A La Haye,” and “revue
    & corrigée sur celles de Leipsic & d’Amsterdam,” appeared in
    England earlier than the English original (_La Cassette verte_
    was noticed in _The Monthly Review_ for May 1779, p. 394; _The
    Green Box_ in the following month, p. 473). It seems most
    likely that the regular Cinquième and the Sixième Editions
    were printed on the Continent and that the variant issues were
    English reprints. Typographical evidence tends to confirm this
    supposition. The type and ornaments of the regular Cinquième
    Edition and the Sixième seem clearly not to be English. The
    variants, on the other hand, all appear to be English in
    origin, and it may be noted that their less elaborate ornaments
    give the impression of feeble imitation.

    There is evidence that the hoax was disliked in certain high
    quarters. In Louis Petit de Bachaumont’s _Mémoires secrets pour
    servir à l’histoire de la republique des lettres en France_,
    1780-89, appears an “Extrait d’une lettre d’Amsterdam du 22 Mai
    1780,” which reads, in part:

      Il a paru dans ce pays, il y a déja du tems, peut-être un an,
      une brochure très courte, intitulée _la cassette verte_.... On
      ne sait si M. de Sartine en a été piqué, ou si c’est un zele
      de ses partisans dans ce pays; mais on mande de la Haye que
      le jeudi 19 de ce mois, on y a arrêté une Dame Godin, comme
      ayant eu quelque part à cette _cassette verte_ & qu’elle en est
      partie le jour même avec des gardes qui la conduisent jusqu’aux
      frontieres de France, d’où vraisemblement elle sera transférée
      à la Bastille (XV, 189).


vi

The Green Box of Monsieur de Sartine, Found at Mademoiselle du Thé’s
Lodgings. From the French of the Hague Edition. Revised and corrected by
those of Leipsic and Amsterdam. “I translate for the Country Gentlemen.”
Anticipation. London: Sold by A. Becket, corner of the Adelphi, Strand;
and R. Faulder, Bond-street. M DCC LXXIX.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank; pp.
[1]-4, “Advertisement”; p. [5], note by the “Editor,” verso blank; pp.
[7]-71, text; p. [72], advertisement of _Anticipation_, Ninth Edition,
_La Cassette verte_, and other works by Tickell.

Copies: BP, HC, HEH, NYP. Sabin #95796.

Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Editions, Becket and Faulder, 1779.
Dublin: James Byrn and Son, 1779. Also an edition dated 1779 without
place or publisher’s name and with different collation; evidently a
piracy. Heartman’s Historical Series No. 19; “Sixty-five copies printed
for Charles F. Heartman, New York City 1916”; this is an independent
translation of _La Cassette verte_.

    “It now appears that this pretended English translation is the
    _original work_, as it came from the ludicrous pen of Mr.
    Tickell ...; and that the French edition ... was only a
    _circumstance_ in the _joke_” (_The Monthly Review_, LX,
    1779, 473).

    A number of imitations followed _La Cassette verte_ and _The
    Green Box_. Among these are _An English Green Box_ ..., G.
    Kearsly, 1779; _Histoire d’un pou françois_ ..., “A Paris, de
    l’Imprimerie Royale,” 1779, and the English version of the
    latter, _History of a French Louse_ ..., T. Becket, 1779—all
    of which have been erroneously ascribed to Tickell.


vii

Epistle from the Honourable Charles Fox, Partridge-Shooting, to the
Honourable John Townshend, Cruising. London: Printed for R. Faulder, New
Bond Street. M DCC LXXIX.

4to. P. [1], half-title, verso blank; p. [3], title, verso blank; pp.
[5]-14, text; pp. [15-16], blank.

Copies: BM, HC. Sabin #95795.

A New Edition, Faulder, 1779. Third Edition, Faulder, 1780. Dublin: R.
Marchbank, 1779. Reprinted in _The New Foundling Hospital for Wit ... A
New Edition ... In Six Volumes_, J. Debrett, 1786, I, 318-323. Reprinted
in _Bell’s Classical Arrangement of Fugitive Poetry_, British Library,
1789-94, IV, [86]-91.

    The _Epistle_ is a pleasing Horatian piece that makes
    good-natured fun of the Whig wits and politicians of Brooks’s
    Club. On John Townshend (1757-1833), later called Lord John,
    second son of the first Marquis Townshend, see W. P. Courtney,
    _Eight Friends of the Great_, 1910, pp. 172-183. Fox, in the
    country, is depicted urging on his pointers with “patriot
    names”:

      No servile ministerial runners they!
      Not RANGER then, but WASHINGTON, I cry;
      Hey on! PAUL JONES, re-echoes to the sky:
      Toho! old FRANKLIN—SILAS DEANE, take heed!—
      Cheer’d with the sound, o’er hills and dales they speed.

    But as he toils through fields of stubble he yearns for “The
    long lost pleasures of ST. JAMES’S STREET,” which are set
    forth by Tickell in graceful and glowing lines. The _Epistle_
    was very highly praised by the reviewers and by others, but
    Horace Walpole, in a letter to Lady Ossory of 2 December 1779,
    recorded an acute dissent: “Towards the end there seems some
    very pretty lines; but, upon the whole, _à quoi bon? à quel
    propos?_ I believe it was meant for a satire, but the author
    winked, and it flashed in the pan (_Letters_, ed. Toynbee, XI,
    74-75).”


viii

Common-Place Arguments against Administration, with Obvious Answers,
(Intended for the Use of the New Parliament.) London: Printed for R.
Faulder, New Bond Street. M DCC LXXX.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank;
pp. [v]-viii, “Advertisement”; pp. [an inserted leaf], “Contents”; pp.
[9]-101, text; p. [102], blank.

Copies: HC, NYP. Sabin #95794.

Second, Third, and Fourth Editions, Faulder, 1780. Dublin: R. Marchbank,
1780; called “The Third Edition.”

    A transparent attempt to repeat the success of _Anticipation_,
    this satire was unanimously assigned to Tickell by the reviews
    and is clearly his. Opposition charges and ministerial replies
    are provided on such topics as “Best Officers drawn from the
    Service,” “The last Campaign, and State of the Nation,” and the
    like, together with a section of “Miscellaneous Eloquence, or,
    Collateral Rhetoric for the Gallery,” which contains the best
    mimicry the tract affords. The reviewers justly taxed Tickell
    with writing for hire and borrowing from himself.


ix

Select Songs of the Gentle Shepherd. As It Is Performed at the
Theatre-Royal, Drury-Lane London: Printed for T. Becket, Adelphi, Strand.
M DCC LXXXI. [Price Six-pence.]

8vo. P. [1], title, verso blank; pp. [3]-19, text; p. [20], blank.

Copy: HEH.

There were no other issues.

    This pastoral opera in two acts, performed as an afterpiece
    at Drury Lane, 29 October 1781, is an alteration of Allan
    Ramsay’s _Gentle Shepherd_, 1725, which had already had a long
    stage history. It ran for twenty-two nights and remained the
    standard stage version until after 1800. In an article entitled
    “Reviving ‘The Gentle Shepherd,’” W. J. Lawrence condemned
    Tickell’s alteration out of hand because “the abounding Doric
    had been bled white, and new music had been substituted for
    the fine old Scots melodies” (_The_ [London] _Graphic_, CVIII,
    1923, 340). The music has not survived, but the discriminating
    review in _The Universal Magazine_ praised Linley’s skill in
    preserving the original airs while providing accompaniments for
    an expanded orchestra (LXIX, 1781, 237). The dialogue, however
    handled, was certain to produce disagreement, but Tickell was
    more faithful to the original than previous adapters had been.
    On this point James Boaden wrote:

      The simple beauties of the poem were ... felt on this occasion,
      and the lovers of rustic nature were obliged to Mr. Tickell for
      the restoration of its original language—the _pronunciation_,
      and still more the _cadence_, suffered as might be expected
      from diffidence and badness of ear (_Memoirs of Mrs. Siddons_,
      1827, I, 252).


x

Songs, Duos, Trios, Chorusses, &c., in the Comic Opera of the Carnival
of Venice, as it is Performed at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. London.
1781. Pr. Iˢ.

8vo. P. [1], title, verso blank; p. [3], “Dramatis Personæ,” verso blank;
pp. 5-27, text; p. [28], blank.

Copy: BM.

There were no other issues.

    _The Carnival of Venice_ opened on 13 December 1781 and
    played twenty-three times during the season but was never
    revived. It was written to suit what Tickell himself, in a
    letter to an aspiring playwright, called “the present taste
    for complicated plot and perplexed incidents” (unpublished
    letter to A. Becket, August 1781, in the Widener Collection,
    Harvard College Library); for the plot, see the review in _The
    Universal Magazine_, LXIX, 1781, 328. The music was provided by
    Linley, and the elaborate sets and costumes by De Loutherbourg.
    In particular the songs were admired: Tom Moore and Samuel
    Rogers remembered and quoted them in the next century (Moore,
    _Sheridan_, 2nd ed., 1825, II, 227; Rogers, _Table-Talk_, p.
    72). Mary Young, in her _Memoirs of Mrs. Crouch_, 1806, said
    that “Many of the songs in this piece so perfectly resemble,
    in poetic beauty, those which adorn the Duenna [by Sheridan],
    that they declare themselves to be the offspring of the same
    Muse” (I, 127). Sheridan’s biographers have variously ascribed
    the songs, in part or entirely, to him and Mrs. Sheridan, but
    on what grounds save their excellence does not appear (Sichel,
    _Sheridan_, I, 443, and II, 459; Rae, article on Tickell in the
    _DNB_).


xi

[Prologue to] Variety; A Comedy, in Five Acts: as it is performed at the
Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane. London: Printed for T. Becket, Adelphi,
Strand, Bookseller to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and Their
Royal Highnesses the Princes. MDCCLXXXII.

Copies: BM, C.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank; pp.
[v-vi], “Prologue, by Richard Tickell, Esq;”; p. [vii], “Epilogue”; p.
[viii], “Epilogue,” continued, and “Dramatis Personæ”; pp. [1]-71, text;
p. [72], publisher’s advertisements.

Subsequent issues disregarded here.

    _Variety_ was written by Richard Griffith (d. 1788), and was
    first performed 25 February 1782.


xii

Remarks on the Commutation Act. Addressed to the People of England.
London: Printed for T. Becket, in Pall-Mall. M DCC LXXXV. [Price One
Shilling and Six-pence.]

8vo. P. [i], title, verso blank; pp. [1]-81, text; p. [82], blank.

Copy: YU.

Second, Third, and Fourth Editions, Becket, 1785.

    Assigned to Tickell by a MS. note on the title-page of a copy
    of the Fourth Edition in the New York Public Library. It is
    characteristically Tickell’s in substance and style. Intended
    as an attack on a proposed reduction of the tea-duty, it
    enlarges into a satire on Pitt’s administration, especially
    the ascendancy of the East India Company interest therein.
    While the Company continues its corrupt sway, Pitt directs
    the energies of Parliament to “Edicts against the Waste of
    Wafers in Public Offices, and Registrations of the Nett
    Consumption of Quills; together with Sworn Meters of Sand, and
    a Comptroller-General of Blotting-Paper.”


xiii

Contributions to _The Rolliad_.

    The work known as _The Rolliad_ is only for the sake of
    convenience so styled. The name serves as a collective title
    for a group of many works, differently titled and separately
    published, ranging from squibs a quatrain long to extended
    mock-heroic poems. These collaborative Whig satires began
    to appear in Henry Bate’s _Morning Herald_ late in 1784;
    and the inclusive editions, issued from 1795 on under the
    title of _The Rolliad_, contain _Criticisms on The Rolliad_,
    _Political Eclogues_, _Probationary Odes for the Laureateship_,
    and _Political Miscellanies_. Many ancillary pieces by the
    same group of authors appeared in newspapers and fugitive
    miscellanies but were never reprinted.

    A good deal has been written in appreciation of the literary
    and political satire of the _Rolliad_ pieces, but no thorough
    study of their history and bibliography has been attempted.
    So complex is their bibliography that it is impossible to
    give a satisfactory account of any single author’s share.
    The principal information on authorship will be found in
    several contributions to _Notes and Queries_, 1st ser., II,
    1850, and III, 1851, from copies of _The Rolliad_ annotated
    by the authors or by those who knew them, as follows:
    French Laurence’s notes, II, 373, and III, 129-131; George
    Ellis’ notes, II, 114-115; Alexander Chalmers’ notes, II,
    242; Sir James Mackintosh’s notes, III, 131. To these should
    be added Sheridan’s notes in a copy used by Walter Sichel;
    see his _Sheridan_, II, 87ff. There is much other scattered
    information, of which full use has not yet been made, in late
    eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century memoirs and journals.

    According to French Laurence, who acted as editor, “the piece
    first published, and the origin of all that followed,” was
    the “Short Account of the Family of the Rollos, now Rolles,”
    written principally by Tickell and purporting to be a genealogy
    of the family of John Rolle, M.P. for Devon, the unlucky
    hero of the projected mock epic. Tickell designed the absurd
    family tree that served as frontispiece for _Criticisms on
    The Rolliad_ (information from Sheridan, in Lord Broughton
    [John Cam Hobhouse], _Recollections of a Long Life_, ed. Lady
    Dorchester, 1909-11, I, 202). He had also a leading hand in
    the next project of the group, the _Probationary Odes_, for
    which he provided the editorial preliminaries, the first of
    the trial odes, supposed to be by Sir Cecil Wray, and the
    ninth, supposed to be by Nathaniel Wraxall and one of the best
    in the series. (According to Mackintosh, the ninth ode was
    “sketched by Canning, the Eton boy, finished by Tickell.”)
    The most successful of the _Political Eclogues_, a satire on
    Lord Lansdowne called _Jekyll_, was the collaborative work
    of Tickell and Lord John Townshend; it first appeared as a
    quarto poem published by J. Debrett, 1788. For the smaller
    contributions of Tickell, which are numerous, the lists in
    _Notes and Queries_ may be consulted.


xiv

A Woollen Draper’s Letter on the French Treaty, to His Friends and Fellow
Tradesmen All over England. “The clothiers all not able to maintain “The
many to them ’longing, have put off “The spinsters, carders, fullers,
weavers.” Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. London: Printed for the Author,
and sold by J. French, Bookseller, No. 164, Fenchurch-street, by the
Booksellers near the Royal Exchange, Pater-Noster-Row, Fleet-street, &c.
&c. &c. M,DCC,LXXXVI.

8vo. P. [i], title, verso blank; pp. [I]-48, text.

Copies: HC, NYP.

Second Edition, French, 1786.

    This tract is here first assigned to Tickell, who stated he
    was the author in a letter to Samuel Parr, 20 February [1787]
    (Parr, _Works_, ed. J. Johnstone, 1828, VIII, 131). It is
    assigned to a different author in Halkett and Laing (new ed.,
    1926-34, VI, 252), where a copy is reported that contains a MS.
    dedication signed “Lieut. J. Mackenzie.” Tickell’s statement of
    authorship, the lack of any information about J. Mackenzie, and
    various circumstances (too involved to detail here) relating
    to Whig propagandist activity at this time, all suggest that
    Lieut. J. Mackenzie is a fictitious person. As the Foxites’
    chief pamphleteer Tickell did his duty, but as a member of
    Brooks’s he did not care to associate his name with a sober
    commercial tract.

      This supposed Woollen Draper, who seems to be well acquainted
      with the subject he treats, endeavours to shew his fellow
      tradesmen the very great injuries to which the woollen trade is
      exposed, by the commercial treaty, lately signed at Paris....
      In his own style, the sample, which he hath here offered to the
      Public, is well wrought, and of a good fabric (_The Monthly
      Review_, LXXVI, 1787, 71).


xv

The People’s Answer to the Court Pamphlet: Entitled A Short Review of
the Political State of Great Britain. Quid prius dicam solitis Parentis
Laudibus?⸺Printed for J. Debrett, opposite Burlington-house Piccadilly.
MDCCLXXXVII.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank; pp.
[1]-50, text; pp. [51-52], blank.

Copies: HC, NYP, WLC.

Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Editions, Debrett, 1787. Dublin: White,
Byrne, Moore, and Jones, 1787.

    This tract is here first assigned to Tickell. His letter to
    Parr of 20 February [1787], mentioned in the preceding entry,
    begins:

      From some enquiries in your letter to Mrs. Sheridan, I believe
      you thought it was right to answer _the Political Review_. I
      mean the pamphlet that traduced the Prince of Wales and every
      one else except Hastings. I now send you the answer I gave
      it, because, as you thought it right it should be answered,
      you will excuse faults in a paper written in a hurry (Parr,
      _Works_, VIII, 131).

    The pamphlet to which Tickell refers is _A Short Review of
    the Political State of Great-Britain at the Commencement
    of the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Seven_,
    Debrett, 1787, a collection of political portraits and cursory
    observations as thin in substance as they are florid in style.
    Its authorship was acknowledged in the _Posthumous Memoirs_,
    1836, of Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, who told there of its immense
    success upon publication: it ran through six editions in the
    last ten days of January, sold 17,000 copies, and elicited a
    half-dozen replies within a month (_Historical and Posthumous
    Memoirs_, 1884, IV, 372-375). _The People’s Answer_ was written
    from Tickell’s precise political position at this time and
    displays his characteristic style.

    Beginning in his usual brisk and pointed manner, Tickell
    suggests that the celebrity of the _Short Review_ is due
    largely to such a total want of polite wit among the supporters
    of Administration “that even a Charade from one of the _King’s
    Friends_ would excite ... admiration.” The author has provided
    “the dull desponding train of an unlettered Court” with

      a sort of handy manual for the Levee ..., lightly touching on
      the topicks most in vogue, and sketching out handy sentences
      for the Lords of the Bedchamber to retail, or the Maids of
      Honour to scribble on their fans.

    Here is the hand of the author of _The Wreath of Fashion_. In
    his treatment of Pitt’s commercial treaty, his gift of mimicry
    is also apparent. Tickell the elegant amateur cannot resist
    parodying the style of writers on commercial subjects:

      Every leaf of these motley compositions displays an epitome
      of all the tricks of invitation, that are practised by the
      trades they discuss; some of them intoxicating the eye, like
      Vintners’ windows, with BRANDY! RUM! and BRITISH SPIRIT! in
      capitals—while others denote their beaten track, and towns
      of baiting; like the lettered pannels of a stage coach, in
      characters of a most extensive and convincing size; as,

                             HULL,
                             LEEDS,
                             WAKEFIELD,
                             YORK,

                                 or

                             BOCKING,
                             BRAINTREE,
                             DUNMOW,
                             COLCHESTER, &c.

    Perhaps the most amusing thing about this passage is that
    Tickell is ridiculing, among others, himself, for these are
    the very devices of the honest Woollen Draper’s _Letter_. The
    defence of the Prince of Wales’ conduct and friends, which
    occupies the later pages of _The People’s Answer_, is in a more
    serious tone.


xvi

[Prologue to] The Fugitive: A Comedy. As it is performed at the King’s
Theatre, Haymarket. By Joseph Richardson, Esq. Barrister at Law.
Ætherias, lascive cupis, volitare per auras I, fuge, sed poteris,
tutior esse domi. Martial. London: Printed for J. Debrett, opposite
Burlington-House, Piccadilly. MDCCXCII.

8vo. P. [i], half-title, verso blank; p. [iii], title, verso blank; pp.
[v-viii], “Advertisement”; pp. [ix-x], “Prologue written by Richard
Tickell, Esq.”; p. [xi], “Dramatis Personæ,” verso blank; pp. [1]-83,
text; p. [84], blank; pp. [85-86], “Epilogue, written by the Right Hon.
Lieutenant General Burgoyne.”

Copies: BM, C.

Subsequent issues disregarded here.

    Joseph Richardson (1755-1803) was an intimate of the
    Sheridan circle, a Foxite politician, and one of the largest
    contributors to _The Rolliad_. _The Fugitive_ was first
    performed 20 April 1792.