Are these Things So? Part 1

Are these Things So? (1740) The Great Man's Answer to Are These things So: (1740).

by Anonymous.

INTRODUCTION

The two pamphlets reproduced here belong to the fierce heightening in the pamphlet campaign against Robert Walpole that took place at the end of 1740. They represent only two efforts within a brief but furious encounter that gave rise to the publication of no fewer than nine separate poems. On Thursday, 23 October 1740, Thomas Cooper, "one of the most prolific printers and publishers of the pamphlet literature of the eighteenth century,"[1] published a savage denunciation of Walpole called _Are these things so?_[2] This pamphlet, which took the fictional form of an open letter from Alexander Pope, "An Englishman in his Grotto," to Robert Walpole, "A Great Man at Court," set off a round of verse writing among the party hacks of the day that vividly ill.u.s.trates the close relationship between literature and politics in the first half of the eighteenth century. Within the s.p.a.ce of two months eight further pamphlets directly related to this pamphlet and to Walpole's position as First Minister were published. Such a spate of literary activity is only remarkable, however, when compared with other ages. While it is inconceivable that the publication of any poem in our own day, even by a major writer, should arouse such a response, it is reasonably typical of the first half of the eighteenth century that the publication of an occasional poem by a minor, indeed anonymous, writer should do so.

On Sat.u.r.day, 8 November, two weeks after the opening blast, Cooper delivered a second volley, an equally fierce (although largely repet.i.tive) denunciation of Walpole ent.i.tled _Yes, they are:_.[3] A week later still, on Sat.u.r.day, 15 November, the first pro-Government riposte, called _What of That!_, was published,[4] followed three days later, on 18 November, by a second reply, _The Weather-Menders: A proper Answer to Are these things so?_[5] The second edition of _What of That!_ was published on the following Sat.u.r.day, 22 November,[6] and a third pro-Walpole poem ent.i.tled _They are Not_, was also published at about this time.[7] At the end of November, or early in December, a reply to all three of these defences of Walpole appeared carrying the t.i.tle, _Have at you All_.[8] On Tuesday, 2 December, the pro-Walpole forces returned to the attack again with a poem ent.i.tled _What Things?_[9] This was followed on Sat.u.r.day, 6 December, by the second edition, "corrected, with the addition of twenty lines omitted in the former impressions" of _Are these things so?_,[10] and on Thursday, 18 December, by yet another anti-Walpole poem, _The Great Man's Answer_[11] purporting to be "by the author of _Are these things so?_." But the pro-Walpole forces were still not silenced and two days later on Sat.u.r.day, 20 December, published _A Supplement to Are these things so?_,[12] an attack on the Patriot opponents of the Ministry. A month later still, on Friday, 23 January 1741,[13] the third edition of _They are Not_ was published. Hereafter this particular controversy seemed to burn itself out, although an anonymous poem ent.i.tled _The Art of Poetry_, published on 17 March 1741, contains a long attack on _Are these things so?_.

This confused battle is most easily summarized by saying that four separate pamphlets (not counting second and third editions) were published which attacked Walpole, and five which defended him. The poems attacking Walpole are far more poetically versatile than those defending him and it is the two most interesting of these attacks that are reproduced here. Taken together, this series of nine pamphlets forms a separate battle within that much larger and continuing war waged by Lord Bolingbroke and the various supporters of the Patriot Opposition against Sir Robert Walpole and the defenders of his Whig Ministry. From the first publication of _The Craftsman_ on 5 December 1726 to the final resignation of the "Great Man" on 11 February 1742 it is probably true to say that no English politician has ever been so continuously and so virulently attacked by so eminent an a.s.semblage of literary persons. Gay, Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, Chesterfield, Lyttleton, Thomson, Fielding, and Johnson each entered the fray at various stages. The fact that Walpole rode out these attacks for so long is more of a comment on the disorganized nature of the opposition politically and on the astute manoeuvring of Walpole himself, than on the ineffectiveness of the attacks.

During the protracted span of this campaign there were only two periods during which the supporters of the Patriot cause had any real chance of toppling Walpole. The first came in 1733 when sustained opposition forced Walpole to drop his proposed Excise Scheme, while the second occurred five years later in 1738 and sprang from a new deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations. Although Walpole did not finally resign until 11 February 1742 his fall from power was a direct result of this deterioration. His position in the House of Commons, and in the country at large, was never as a.s.sured in the last four years of his "reign" as it had been in the first seventeen.

The pamphlets reproduced here deal with Walpole's declining reputation and especially with his handling of Spanish policy. The causes of the English differences with Spain go back to 1713 and the Treaty of Utrecht in which the South Sea Company had been granted, amongst other privileges, the right to send one trading vessel a year to the Spanish possessions.[14] This right had been grossly abused by English merchants eager to make large profits and a great number of English trading ships annually smuggled goods to Spanish America. The Spanish governors were only too pleased to accept such contraband trade for by it they avoided payment of duties to the King of Spain. In order to defend themselves against this illegal traffic the Spanish authorities established a fleet of _guarda-costas_ to intercept, search, and, if necessary, punish the English ships. The _guarda-costas_ did this with great effect and, on occasion, with considerable cruelty. The most notorious example concerned the capture, near Jamaica in 1731, of Captain Robert Jenkins'

ship, the _Rebecca_, and the ensuing removal of one of Jenkins' ears. It was with Jenkins' presentation of this ear, which "wrapt up in cotton, he always carried about him,"[15] before the House of Commons seven years later in March 1738 that Anglo-Spanish differences came to a head.

The Patriots demanded war and revenge: Walpole, however, was committed to a policy of peace. Accordingly, he spent the rest of the year trying to patch things up and the ill-fated Convention of Pardo concluded on 14 January 1739 was the result. The Convention involved compromise on both sides. England claimed that Spain owed her 343,277 by way of reparation for damages done to English vessels, and Spain claimed that England owed her 180,000 by way of arrears on duties due to the King of Spain. This left a balance of 163,277 and England agreed to accept 95,000 as a total discharge in return for payment within four months.[16]

On 1 February Walpole laid this Convention before Parliament, and, despite vociferous opposition, it was eventually ratified on 9 March by a vote of 244 to 214. As a result of this ratification a considerable section of the opposition, under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham, immediately seceded from Parliament. Feelings had never been higher. On 15 May, one day after the payment had fallen due, Benjamin Keene, the British Minister in Madrid, was officially informed that the 95,000 would only be paid if Admiral Haddock removed his fleet from the Mediterranean. England had no intention of recalling Haddock, for both Gibraltar and Minorca would then remain defenceless, and Spain clearly had no real intention of paying the money. From this point on war became inevitable and on 19 October 1739 the declaration was made "and was received by all ranks and distinctions of men with a degree of enthusiasm and joy, which announced the general frenzy of the nation."[17] It was on hearing the church bells pealing at the news that Walpole made his famous remark: "They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands."[18]

One month later, on 22 November, Admiral Vernon captured Porto Bello, the port in which the _guarda-costas_ had been fitted out. The news of this victory did not arrive in England until nearly four months later on 13 March 1740, but it brought with it great public excitement and jubilation. Thus by the end of 1740 the revenge on the Spanish had begun. Those who had demanded war seemed justified and Walpole had been discredited. This is the political background against which these pamphlets are set.

Both pamphlets have been attributed to James Miller, but the evidence for such attribution is c.u.mulative rather than definitive.[19] _Are these things so?_ has been far more frequently attributed to Miller than _The Great Man's Answer_. The earliest attribution is found in D. E. Baker's _Biographia Dramatica_ which, although it was not published till 1812, was originally compiled by Baker sometime before 1764.[20] Robert Watt also lists _Are these things so?_ as Miller's work in his _Bibliotheca Britannica_, Edinburgh, 1824.[21] The entries under Miller in the _CBEL_ and _DNB_ both accept these attributions as does the _British Museum Catalogue_. The evidence for attributing _The Great Man's Answer_ to Miller is far more slender and rests largely on the publisher's claim on the t.i.tle page, which may well have been made for the sake of promotion, that it is "By the Author of _Are these things so?_".

James Miller, 1706-1744, is better known as a comic dramatist than as a poet. He was the son of a clergyman from Upcerne in Dorset, and was educated at Wadham College, Oxford, where he wrote a comedy, _The Humours of Oxford_, which was successfully performed at Drury Lane in January 1730. On leaving Oxford he had been expected by his relations to go into business, but "not being able to endure the servile drudgery it demanded," he took holy orders and continued to write plays "to increase his finances."[22] From 1730 until his death in 1744 he wrote ten plays, several of which were performed with considerable success.[23]

But it is as a poet that we are primarily interested in Miller. He was the author of several occasional poems of which his _Harlequin Horace, or the Art of Modern Poetry_, 1731, was the best known. This poem, yet another imitation of Horace's _Ars Poetica_ is an attack on John Rich, the manager of Lincoln's Inn Fields and Covent-Garden. The poem is ironically full of perverse modern advice on how to write poetry. Miller adopts the persona of a modern Grub Street poet who scorns the cla.s.sical values. Consequently Pope, who insists on standards of excellence, is seen by the persona as the great enemy of modern poets. At the same time it is quite clear that for Miller himself Pope is the greatest of poets.

The poem includes an attack on Walpole (ll. 209-216), and perhaps it was this that led the agents of the Ministry to make him the large offer referred to in the biography of Miller found in Cibber's _Lives_. But, as the anonymous writer of this life goes on to point out, Miller "had virtue sufficient to withstand the temptation, though his circ.u.mstances at that time were far from being easy."[24]

A second verse satire in the manner of Horace, _Seasonable Reproof_, 1735, has also been attributed to Miller. The poem is a general satire on Britain's "State of Reprobation," and only makes a pa.s.sing glance at Walpole. London has been so forsaken by people all rushing to the Italian opera that

By _Excis.e.m.e.n_, it might now be taken, And great Sir _Bob_ ride through, and save his Bacon (ll. 6-7).

But more significant in our context is that, as Maynard Mack has shown, the author creates a speaker "who by his careful echoings of the _Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot_ seems to labor to be mistaken for Pope."[25]

If Miller was the author of both _Seasonable Reproof_ and _Are these things so?_ his fascination with the persona of the poet in his grotto emerges as no sudden whim of wit, but as a continuing concern with the symbolic significance of Pope's actual life. Furthermore, the poet who attacked Walpole so violently in October 1740 emerges as no upstart Patriot cashing in on Walpole's current unpopularity, but as a consistent and courageous opponent of Walpole since at least 1731.

In _Are these things so?_ Pope is imagined to be speaking throughout, although he in turn imagines what Walpole might say at various points.

The poem is full of allusions and references intended to support the pretense that Pope is speaking. In line eight the speaker says his luxury is "lolling in my peaceful Grot"; in lines fifteen and sixteen he echoes Pope's famous claim in _To Fortescue_ that he is "TO VIRTUE ONLY and HER FRIENDS, A FRIEND,"[26] when he says:

Close shut my Cottage-Gate, where none pretends To lift the Latch but Virtue and her Friends;

and in lines seventeen and eighteen he shows that he knew Walpole had once visited Pope at Twickenham.[27]

These allusions to Pope's actual life have been carefully chosen by the author in order to give dramatic credibility to his chosen spokesman rather than to persuade the reader that Pope was the real author. The impersonation of Pope is meant to be transparent: the poet is demonstrating his versatility at imitating Pope and has considerable fun in doing so. The only evidence that could be brought in to support an interpretation that stressed the author's serious intent to make Pope seem the real author concerns a Dublin reprint of the poem that actually carried Pope's name as author on the t.i.tle page. But it is extremely unlikely that the true author had anything to do with this since the Dublin publisher did not even bother to incorporate the corrections and additions that the poet had made to the second edition.

To point out that the device of creating a spokesman is meant to be seen through is not the same thing, however, as saying that the author could afford to admit his authorship. There were good reasons why the author of a poem that was primarily an attack on the First Minister, and who was himself probably without any great influence or reputation, should need to hide the fact of his authorship. For such a person the choice of Pope as spokesman could hardly have been more appropriate.[28]

In May and July 1738 Pope had published his devastating attacks on the state of the country known as _The Epilogue to the Satires_. On 31 January 1739 Paul Whitehead published his attack on the artificialities and disguises of Walpole's Ministry and the Court favourites in a poem (which Boswell refers to as "brilliant and pointed"[29]) called _Manners: A Satire_. At this point the government decided that it was time they attempted to stop, or at least stem, these attacks. They were not keen to confront Pope himself, but Whitehead presented a less formidable opponent.[30] Consequently, in February 1739, he and his publisher Robert Dodsley were summoned before the bar of the House of Lords to account for the attacks on named individuals in _Manners_. On Monday, 12 February, the poem "was voted scandalous, etc. by the Lords, and the author and publisher ordered into custody, where Mr. Dodsley, the publisher, was a week; but Mr. Paul Whitehead, the author, absconds."[31] Whitehead antic.i.p.ated this summons when he wrote in the poem:

_Pope_ writes unhurt--but know, 'tis different quite To beard the lion, and to crush the mite.

Safe may he dash the Statesman in each line, Those dread his satire, who dare punish mine (p. 15).

Pope was then the ideal spokesman for our author's purposes: the mite must dress up as the lion. It was admittedly almost two years since Whitehead's original summons, but the incident was well enough remembered to spur a gossip columnist writing in _The Daily Gazetteer_ on 11 November 1740 to suggest that Whitehead was the author of _Are these things so?_ Whitehead, too, evidently felt the danger of the situation for he deemed it necessary to publish a denial four days later.[32]

In choosing Pope for his spokesman the author of _Are these things so?_ showed a full awareness of the political realities. He also showed a detailed familiarity with Pope's life and work. There is nothing, however, to indicate that such knowledge was reciprocal, or even to indicate that Pope knew of the poem's existence. The only evidence that Pope knew anything about Miller's work, if indeed Miller was the author, comes in a letter Pope wrote to Caryll on 6 February 1731 in which he praises _Harlequin Horace_ although he does not seem to know the author's name.[33]

_Are these things so?_ opens with Pope challenging Walpole to explain why Britain has fallen as low as she has and why France and Spain have been allowed "to limit out her sea." Walpole is then imagined defending his measures, especially the Excise Scheme, the Convention of Pardo, Placement and the Secret Service. In the second half of the poem the satirist repeats the charges and invites Walpole to turn his eyes inward and imagine that he dies guilty. Pope then begs Walpole to resign and, failing that, begs the King to intervene. The poem closes in a positive way by turning from Walpole and listing other persons (all members of the Opposition) that George II might appoint to a new Ministry.

In the first edition (23 October) these persons were given fict.i.tious names. The second edition (6 December) not only subst.i.tuted their real names but also added twenty lines at the end which included Cobham and Argyle in the list of worthies. It is this edition, which carries an Advertis.e.m.e.nt explaining these changes, that we have reproduced here.

Finally it seems helpful to append a few notes to help identify some of the allusions. In line 63 (p. 4) the "ONE more n.o.ble than the rest" is presumably Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke who was stripped of his t.i.tle by Act of Attainder in 1725. In line 73 (p. 5) the "brave and honest _Adm'ral_" is Vernon who captured Porto Bello on 22 November 1739. The "_st.u.r.dy Beggars_" mentioned in line 100 (p. 6), was the appelation used by Walpole in referring to the mob outside the door of Parliament on 14 March 1733, and was taken up by the Opposition as pertaining to all the merchants and individuals opposed to the Excise.[34] In line 129 (p. 8) the "C--n----n" is the Convention of Pardo described earlier in this introduction. In line 139 (p. 8) the "BROTHER"

referred to is Horatio Walpole who was a frequent amba.s.sador abroad for Robert Walpole's government. In line 218 (p. 12) "HE whose _Fame_ to both the Poles is known" is George II.

The persons named at the end of the poem as possible replacements for Walpole are all persons who were at one time members of the Whig party but who had joined the opposition because of their dislike for Walpole.

John Carteret, Earl Granville (ll. 231-236, p. 13, and referred to as Camillus in the first edition), had a long struggle with Walpole for control of the Whig party and joined the Opposition Whigs after he returned from the lord lieutenancy of Ireland in 1730. It was Carteret who was to move the unsuccessful resolution on 13 February 1741, requesting the King to remove Walpole from his "presence and counsels for ever." William Pulteney, Earl of Bath (ll. 237-242, p. 13, and referred to as Demosthenes in the first edition) was also an early ally of Walpole's who later broke with him to form the Patriot party. He became one of the editors of _The Craftsman_. Philip Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield (ll. 243-245, p. 13, and referred to as Atticus in the first edition) was also a lifelong Whig who joined Carteret in leading the opposition to Walpole in the Lords. Hugh Hume, Lord Polwarth and Earl of Marchmont (ll. 246-257, p. 14, and referred to as "that fam'd _Caledonian Youth_" in the first edition), had been a persistent and relentless opponent of Walpole in the Commons, but on the death of his father in February 1740 had acceded to the Earldom of Marchmont and been unable to get elected as a representative peer. Although twenty years younger than Pope (he was only 32 in 1740) he became a close friend and was appointed an executor of his will. Pope refers to his friendship in his _Verses on a Grotto_: "And the bright Flame was shot thro'

MARCHMONT'S Soul."[35] Sir Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham (ll. 258-261, p. 14), was also a staunch Whig who broke with Walpole and joined the Patriots. He, too, was an intimate friend of Pope's who addressed the first moral essay to him and praised his famous gardens at Stowe in the fourth. John Campbell, Duke of Argyle (ll. 262-265, pp. 14-15) was a distinguished soldier who joined the Opposition during the discussion of Spanish affairs. Both Pope and Thomson had celebrated his eloquence, and ll. 262-263 here are a direct recollection of lines 86-87 in Pope's _Epilogue to the Satires: Dialogue II_:

ARGYLE, the State's whole Thunder born to wield, And shake alike the Senate and the Field.

With the exception of Carteret each of the persons named at the end of the poem was either an acquaintance or a close friend of Pope's. We have here one last example of the remarkable degree to which the author of this pamphlet had a.s.similated the true facts of Pope's life into his fictional re-creation.

According to the t.i.tle page, _The Great Man's Answer_ is by the same author as _Are these things so?_. Once again the setting is Pope's grotto, but this time the poet engages Walpole in a direct dialogue. The poem begins with the poet being disturbed in his retreat by someone "thundering at the gate." It is Walpole who has come to answer the questions asked in _Are these things so?_. He maintains that Britain has not fallen as low as Pope claims and that the Honour of the Fleet is still intact. He defends his handling of Parliament, his fiscal policies, his appointment of Placemen and Pensioners, his att.i.tude to Commerce, and the self-aggrandis.e.m.e.nt involved in many of his contracts.

These defences, which only bring out a severer irony in Pope, lead up to Walpole's version of his own epitaph in contrast to that given him in _Are these things so?_. Where Pope had stressed his role as the grave-digger of British Liberty, Walpole sees himself as the healer of factions. Finally he falls back on his ultimate weapon of bribery. But his offers of money, pension, place, t.i.tle, and honour are turned down by the poet with increasing scorn, and the poem ends with appropriate focus on Pope' incorruptibility.

The following notes are offered to help with the topical allusions.[36]

The poem opens with Pope directing his servant, John Serle (l. 7, p. 1), to see who is thundering at his gate. This is a playful allusion to the famous opening of _An Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot_ where Serle had been urged to an exactly opposite course of action. The "_Gazetteer_ Abuse"

scornfully mentioned by Pope (l. 37, p. 3) is a reference to _The Daily Gazetteer_, a pro-Government newspaper which ran from 30 June 1735-20 June 1745. The incomplete words, "Se--s" (l. 66, p. 4) and "P------ts!"

(l. 79, p. 5) refer to Senates and Parliaments respectively. Walpole's claim (l. 89, p. 5) that "_Gin_ would then be drank without control"

refers to the government's Gin Act of 1736, which placed an excise of five shillings a gallon on gin. His later claim that there would be "No _License_ on the _Press_, or on the _Stage_" (l. 98, p. 6) refers to the Stage Licensing Act of 1737, which placed the theatre under the control of the Lord Chamberlain.

For Pope's ironic application of the epithet "st.u.r.dy" (l. 164, p. 9) to the London Merchants see the notes to _Are these things so?_. Pope's mention of "_Angria_" (l. 204, p. 11) is a comparison of Walpole to a Mahrattan pirate chief of the early part of the century. Walpole's introduction to his own epitaph, "They _best_ can speak it, who will _feel_ it most" (l. 223, p. 12) is an allusion to Pope's _Eloisa to Abelard_ (l. 366): "He best can paint 'em who shall feel 'em most."

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO London, Ontario, Canada

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

[1] H. R. Plomer, _A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers Who Were at Work in England. 1726-1775_ (Oxford, 1932), p. 61.

[2] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 23 October 1740.