History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

773

Desaguliers and Hill were the two first writers who gave themselves up to popularizing physical truths. At the beginning of the reign of George I. Desaguliers was ‘the first who read lectures in London on experimental philosophy.’ Southey's Commonplace Book, 3d series, 1850, p. 77. See also Penny Cyclopædia, vol. viii. p. 430; and, on his elementary works, compare Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. vi. p. 81. As to Hill, he is said to have set the example of publishing popular scientific works in numbers; a plan so well suited to that inquisitive age, that, if we believe Horace Walpole, he ‘earned fifteen guineas a week.’ Letter to Henry Zouch, January 3rd, 1761, in Walpole's Letters, vol. iv. p. 117, edit. 1840.

In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the demand for books on the natural sciences rapidly increased (see, among many other instances which might be quoted, a note in Pulteney's Hist. of Botany, vol. ii. p. 180); and, early in the reign of George III., Priestley began to write popularly on physical subjects. (Memoirs of Priestley, vol. i. pp. 288, 289.) Goldsmith did something in the same direction (Prior's Life of Goldsmith, vol. i. pp. 414, 469, vol. ii. p. 198); and Pennant, whose earliest work appeared in 1766, was ‘the first who treated the natural history of Britain in a popular and interesting style.’ Swainson on the Study of Natural History, p. 50. In the reign of George II., publishers began to encourage elementary works on chemistry. Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. ix. p. 763.

774

In 1704, 1708, and 1710, Harris published his Dictionary of Arts and Sciences; and from this, according to Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. ix. pp. 770, 771, has ‘originated all the other dictionaries and cyclopædias that have since appeared.’ Compare vol. v. p. 659; and Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters, vol. iv. p. 500.

775

Late in the seventeenth century, an attempt was first made in England to establish literary journals. Hallam's Lit. of Europe, vol. iii. p. 539; and Dibdin's Bibliomania, 1842, p. 16. But reviews, as we now understand the word, meaning a critical publication, were unknown before the accession of George II.; but, about the middle of his reign, they began to increase. Compare Wright's England under the House of Hanover, 1848, vol. i. p. 304, with Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. iii. pp. 507, 508. At an earlier period, the functions of reviews were performed, as Monk says, by pamphlets. Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 112.

776

As we find from many casual notices of book clubs and book societies. See, for example, Doddridge's Correspond. vol. ii. pp. 57, 119; Jesse's Life of Selwyn, vol. ii. p. 23; Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century, vol. v. pp. 184, 824, 825; Wakefield's Life of Himself, vol. i. p. 528; Memoirs of Sir J. E. Smith, vol. i. p. 8; Life of Roscoe, by his Son, vol. i. p. 228 (though this last was perhaps a circulating library).

777

‘Numerous associations or clubs, composed principally of reading men of the lower ranks.’ Life of Dr. Currie, by his Son, vol. i. p. 175.

778

Of which the most remarkable was that called the Robin-Hood Society; respecting which the reader should compare Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 373; Grosley's London, vol. i. p. 150; Parl. Hist. vol. xvii. p. 301; Southey's Commonplace Book, 4th series, p. 339; Forster's Life of Goldsmith, vol. i. p. 310; Prior's Life of Goldsmith, vol. i. pp. 419, 420; Prior's Life of Burke, p. 75; Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. iii. p. 154.

779

‘From the summer of 1769 is to be dated the first establishment of public meetings in England.’ Albemarle's Mem. of Rockingham, vol. ii. p. 93. ‘Public meetings, … through which the people might declare their newly-acquired consciousness of power, … cannot be distinctly traced higher than the year 1769; but they were now (i. e. in 1770) of daily occurrence.’ Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. iii. p. 187. See also Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 420.

780

The most interesting trials were first noticed in newspapers towards the end of the reign of George II. Campbell's Chancellors, vol. v. p. 52, vol. vi. p. 54.

781

In 1696, the only newspapers were weekly; and the first daily paper appeared in the reign of Anne. Compare Simmonds's Essay on Newspapers, in Journal of Statist. Society, vol. iv. p. 113, with Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. pp. 167, 175, vol. ii. p. 90; and Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. iv. p. 80. In 1710, they, instead of merely communicating news, as heretofore, began to take part in ‘the discussion of political topics’ (Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 443); and, as this change had been preceded a very few years by the introduction of cheap political pamphlets (see a curious passage in Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. ii. p. 29), it became evident that a great movement was at hand in regard to the diffusion of such inquiries. Within twenty years after the death of Anne, the revolution was completed; and the press, for the first time in the history of the world, was made an exponent of public opinion. The earliest notice of this new power which I have met in parliament, is in a speech delivered by Danvers, in 1738; which is worth quoting, both because it marks an epoch, and because it is characteristic of that troublesome class to which the man belonged. ‘But I believe,’ says this distinguished legislator, – ‘but I believe the people of Great Britain are governed by a power that never was heard of, as a supreme authority, in any age or country before. This power, sir, does not consist in the absolute will of the prince, in the direction of parliament, in the strength of an army, in the influence of the clergy, neither, sir, is it a petticoat government: but, sir, it is the government of the press. The stuff which our weekly newspapers are filled with, is received with greater reverence than acts of parliament; and the sentiments of one of these scribblers have more weight with the multitude than the opinion of the best politician in the kingdom.’ Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 448.

782

This great contest was brought to a close in 1771 and 1772; when, as Lord Campbell says, ‘the right of publishing parliamentary debates was substantially established.’ Campbell's Chancellors, vol. v. p. 511, vol. vi. p. 90. For further information respecting this important victory, see Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. iii. pp. 179-184; Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes, 1805, vol. v. p. 63; Stephens's Mem. of Tooke, vol. i. pp. 329–351; Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 290; and, on its connexion with Junius's Letters, see Forster's Life of Goldsmith, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.

George III., always consistent and always wrong, strenuously opposed this extension of the popular rights. In 1771, he wrote to Lord North: ‘It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates in the papers should be put a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring such miscreants before; as it can fine, as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?’ App. to Mahon, vol. v. p. xlviii.; and note in Walpole's George III. vol. iv. p. 280, where the words, ‘in the papers,’ are omitted; but I copy the letter, as printed by Lord Mahon. In other respects, both versions are the same; so that we now know the idea George III. had of what constituted a miscreant.

783

Lord John Russell, in his work on the History of the English Constitution, says: ‘Dr. Jebb, and after him Mr. Cartwright, broached the theory of personal representation;’ but this appears to be a mistake, since the theory is said to have been first put forward by Cartwright, in 1776. Compare Russell on the Constitution, 1821, pp. 240, 241, with Life and Corresp. of Cartwright, 1826, vol. i. pp. 91, 92. A letter in the Life of Dr. Currie, vol. ii. pp. 307–314, shows the interest which even sober and practical men were beginning to feel in the doctrine before the end of the century.

784

On this I have a philological remark of some interest, – namely, that there is reason to believe that ‘the word “independence,” in its modern acceptation,’ does not occur in our language before the early part of the eighteenth century. See Hare's Guesses at Truth, 2nd series, 1848, p. 262. A similar change, though at a later period, took place in France. See the observations on the word ‘individualisme,’ in Tocqueville, Démocratie en Amérique, vol. iv. p. 156; and in the later work, by the same author, L'Ancien Régime, Paris, 1856, pp. 148, 149.

785

Archbishop Whately (Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 76, 77) says: ‘Neither the attacks on our religion, nor the evidences in its support, were, to any great extent, brought forward in a popular form, till near the close of the last century. On both sides, the learned (or those who professed to be such) seem to have agreed in this, – that the mass of the people were to acquiesce in the decision of their superiors, and neither should, nor could, exercise their own minds on the question.’ This is well put, and quite true; and should be compared with the complaint in Wakefield's Life of Himself, vol. ii. p. 21; Nichols's Lit. Anec. of the Eighteenth Century, vol. viii. p. 144; and Hodgson's Life of Bishop Porteus, pp. 73, 74, 122, 125, 126. See also a speech by Mansfield, in 1781 (Parl. Hist. vol. xxii. p. 265), when an attempt was made to put down the ‘Theological Society.’ The whole debate is worth reading; not on account of its merits, but because it supplies evidence of the prevailing spirit.

786

Coleridge (Lit. Remains, vol. i. pp. 230 seq.) has made some interesting remarks on the vicissitudes of English style; and he justly observes, p. 238, that, ‘after the Revolution, the spirit of the nation became much more commercial than it had been before; a learned body, or clerisy, as such, gradually disappeared; and literature in general began to be addressed to the common, miscellaneous public.’ He goes on to lament this change; though, in that, I disagree with him. See also The Friend, vol. i. p. 19, where he contrasts the modern style with ‘the stately march and difficult evolutions’ of the great writers of the seventeenth century. Compare, on this alteration, the preface to Nader Shah, in Works of Sir W. Jones, vol. v. p. 544. See also, in Harford's Life of Burgess, pp. 40, 41, a curious letter from Monboddo, the last of our really great pedants, mourning over this characteristic of modern composition. He terms it contemptuously a ‘short cut of a style;’ and wishes to return to ‘the true ancient taste,’ with plenty of ‘parentheses!’

The truth is, that this movement was merely part of that tendency to approximate the different classes of society which was first clearly seen in the eighteenth century, and which influenced not only the style of author, but also their social habits. Hume observes that, in the ‘last age,’ learned men had separated themselves too much from the world; but that, in his time, they were becoming more ‘conversible.’ Essay V., in Hume's Philosophical Works, vol. iv. pp. 539, 540. That ‘philosophers’ were growing men of the world, is also noticed in a curious passage in Alciphron, dial. i., in Berkeley's Works, vol. i. p. 312; and, respecting the general social amalgamation, see a letter to the Countess of Bute, in 1753, in Works of Lady Mary Montagu, edit. 1803, vol. iv. pp. 194, 195. As to the influence of Addison, who led the way in establishing the easy, and therefore democratic, style, and who, more than any single writer, made literature popular, compare Aikin's Life of Addison, vol. ii. p. 65, with Turner's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 7. Subsequently a reaction was attempted by Johnson, Gibbon, and Parr; but this, being contrary to the spirit of the age, was short-lived.

787

And the servility was, for the most part, well paid; indeed, rewarded far more than it was worth. During the sixteenth, seventeenth, and early part of the eighteenth century, a sum of money was invariably presented to the author in return for his dedication. Of course, the grosser the flattery, the larger the sum. On the relation thus established between authors and men of rank, and on the eagerness with which even eminent writers looked to their patrons for gratuities, varying from 40s. to 100l., see Drake's Shakespeare and his Times, 1817, 4to. vol. ii. p. 225; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. pp. 194, 309; Whiston's Memoirs, p. 203; Nichols's Illustrations, vol. ii. p. 709; Harris's Life of Hardwicke, vol. iii. p. 35; Bunbury's Life of Hanmer, p. 81. Compare a note in Burton's Diary, vol. iii. p. 52; and as to the importance of fixing on a proper person to whom to dedicate, see Ellis's Letters Lit. Men, pp. 231–234; and the matter-of-fact remark in Bishop Newton's Life, p. 14; also, Hughes's Letters, edit. 1773, vol. iii. p. xxxi. appendix.

About the middle of the eighteenth century was the turning-point of this deplorable condition; and Watson, for instance, in 1769, laid it down as a rule, ‘never to dedicate to those from whom I expected favours.’ Watson's Life of Himself, vol. i. p. 54. So, too, Warburton, in 1758, boasts that his dedication was not, as usual, ‘occupied by trifles or falsehoods.’ See his letter, in Chatham Correspond. vol. i. p. 315. Nearly at the same period, the same change was effected in France, where D'Alembert set the example of ridiculing the old custom. See Brougham's Men of Letters, vol. ii. pp. 439, 440; Correspond. de Madame Dudeffand, vol. ii. p. 148; and Œuvres de Voltaire, vol. xl. p. 41, vol. lxi. p. 285.

788

When Le Blanc visited England, in the middle of the reign of George II., the custom of authors relying upon the patronage of individuals was beginning to die away, and the plan of publishing by subscription had become general. See the interesting details in Le Blanc, Lettres d'un Français, vol. i. pp. 305–308; and for the former state of things, see vol. ii. pp. 148–153. Burke, who came to London in 1750, observes, with surprise, that ‘writers of the first talents are left to the capricious patronage of the public. Notwithstanding discouragement, literature is cultivated to a high degree.’ Prior's Life of Burke, p. 21. This increasing independence also appears from the fact that, in 1762, we find the first instance of a popular writer attacking public men by name; authors having previously confined themselves ‘to the initials only of the great men whom they assailed.’ Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 19. The feud between literature and rank may be further illustrated by an entry in Holcroft's Diary for 1798, Mem. of Holcroft, vol. iii. p. 28.

789

In England, the marked increase in the number of books took place during the latter half of the eighteenth century, and particularly after 1756. See some valuable evidence in Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. iii. pp. 383, 384. To this I may add, that between 1753 and 1792, the circulation of newspapers was more than doubled. Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. p. 252.

790

The apparent caprice and irregularity in small numbers arise from the perturbations produced by the operation of minor and usually unknown laws. In large numbers, these perturbations have a tendency to balance each other; and this I take to be the sole foundation of the accuracy obtained by striking an average. If we could refer all phenomena to their laws, we should never use averages. Of course, the expression capricious is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, and is merely a measure of our ignorance.

791

The temporary political reaction under Anne is well related by Lord Cowper, in his Hist. of Parties, printed in appendix to Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 411, 412. This able work of Lord Campbell's, though rather inaccurate for the earlier period, is particularly valuable for the history of the eighteenth century.

792

See Reminiscences of the Courts of George I. and George II. by Horace Walpole, pp. lv. xciv.; and Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. i. pp. 100, 235. The fault of George II. was in his bad pronunciation of English; but George I. was not even able to pronounce it badly, and could only converse with his minister, Sir Robert Walpole, in Latin. The French court saw this state of things with great pleasure; and in December 1714, Madame de Maintenon wrote to the Princess des Ursins (Lettres inédites de Maintenon, vol. iii. p. 157): ‘On dit que le nouveau roi d'Angleterre se dégoûte de ses sujets, et que ses sujets sont dégoûtés de lui. Dieu veuille remettre le tout en meilleur ordre!’ On the effect this produced on the language spoken at the English court, compare Le Blanc, Lettres d'un Français, vol. i. p. 159.

793

In 1715, Leslie writes respecting George I., that he is ‘a stranger to you, and altogether ignorant of your language, your laws, customs, and constitution.’ Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 703.

794

Great light has been thrown upon the character of George II. by the recent publication of Lord Hervey's Memoirs; a curious work, which fully confirms what we know from other sources respecting the king's ignorance of English politics. Indeed, that prince cared for nothing but soldiers and women; and his highest ambition was to combine the reputation of a great general with that of a successful libertine. Besides the testimony of Lord Hervey, it is certain, from other authorities, that George II. was despised as well as disliked, and was spoken of contemptuously by observers of his character, and even by his own ministers. See the Marchmont Papers, vol. i. pp. 29, 181, 187.

In reference to the decline of the royal authority, it is important to observe, that since the accession of George I. none of our sovereigns have been allowed to be present at state deliberations. See Bancroft's American Revolution, vol. ii. p. 47, and Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 191.

795

See the remarks said to be written by Bishop Atterbury, in Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 534, contrasting the affection Anne felt for the church with the coldness of George I. The whole of the pamphlet (pp. 521–541) ought to be read. It affords a curious picture of a baffled churchman.

796

The ill-feeling which the Church of England generally bore against the government of the two first Georges was openly displayed, and was so pertinaceous as to form a leading fact in the history of England. In 1722, Bishop Atterbury was arrested, because he was known to be engaged in a treasonable conspiracy with the Pretender. As soon as he was seized, the church offered up prayers for him. ‘Under the pretence,’ says Lord Mahon, – ‘under the pretence of his being afflicted with the gout, he was publicly prayed for in most of the churches of London and Westminster.’ Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 38. See also Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 988, and vol. viii. p. 347.

At Oxford, where the clergy have long been in the ascendant, they made such efforts to instill their principles as to call down the indignation of the elder Pitt, who, in a speech in Parliament in 1754, denounced that university, which he said had for many years ‘been raising a succession of treason – there never was such a seminary!'’Walpole's Mem. of George II. vol. i. p. 413. Compare the Bedford Correspondence, vol. i. pp. 594, 595, with Harris's Life of Hardwicke, vol. ii. p. 383; and on the temper of the clergy generally after the death of Anne, Parl. Hist. vol. vii. pp. 541, 542; Bowles's Life of Ken, vol. ii. pp. 188, 189; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. pp. 370, 426.

The immediate consequence of this was very remarkable. For the government and the dissenters, being both opposed by the church, naturally combined together: the dissenters using all their influence against the Pretender, and the government protecting them against ecclesiastical prosecutions. See evidence of this in Doddridge's Correspond. and Diary, vol. i. p. 30, vol. ii. p. 321, vol. iii. pp. 110, 125, vol. iv. pp. 428, 436, 437; Hutton's Life of Himself, pp. 159, 160; Parl. Hist. vol. xxviii. pp. 11, 393, vol. xxix. pp. 1434, 1463; Memoirs of Priestley, vol. ii. p. 506; Life of Wakefield, vol. i. p. 220.

797

‘The year 1762 forms an era in the history of the two factions, since it witnessed the destruction of that monopoly of honours and emoluments which the Whigs had held for forty-five years.’ Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. ii. p. 406. Compare Albemarle's Memoirs of Rockingham, vol. ii. p. 92. Lord Bolingbroke clearly foresaw what would happen in consequence of the accession of George I. Immediately after the death of Anne, he wrote to the Bishop of Rochester: ‘But the grief of my soul is this, I see plainly that the Tory party is gone.’ Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 651.

798

Grosley, who visited England only five years after the accession of George III., mentions the great effect produced upon the English when they heard the king pronounce their language without ‘a foreign accent.’ Grosley's Tour to London, vol. ii. p. 106. It is well known that the king, in his first speech, boasted of being a Briton; but what is, perhaps, less generally known is, that the honour was on the side of the country: ‘What a lustre,’ said the House of Lords in their address to him, – ‘what a lustre does it cast upon the name of Briton when you, sir, are pleased to esteem it amongst your glories!’ Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 986.

799

Parl. Hist. vol. xxix. p. 955; Walpole's Mem. of George III. vol. i. pp. 4, 110.

800

The accession of George III. is generally fixed on as the period when English Jacobinism became extinct. See Butler's Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 92. At the first court held by the new king, it was observed, says Horace Walpole, that ‘the Earl of Litchfield, Sir Walter Bagot, and the principal Jacobites went to court.’ Walpole's Mem. of George III. vol. i. p. 14. Only three years earlier the Jacobites had been active; and in 1757, Rigby writes to the Duke of Bedford: ‘Fox's election at Windsor is very doubtful. There is a Jacobite subscription of 5,000l. raised against him, with Sir James Dashwood's name at the head of it.’ Bedford Correspond. vol. ii. p. 261.

801

Charles Stuart was so stupidly ignorant, that at the age of twenty-five he could hardly write, and was altogether unable to spell. Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. iii. pp. 165, 166, and appendix, p. ix. After the death of his father, in 1766, this abject creature, who called himself king of England, went to Rome, and took to drinking. Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 351–353. In 1779, Swinburne saw him at Florence, where he used to appear every night at the opera, perfectly drunk. Swinburne's Courts of Europe, vol. i. pp. 253–255; and in 1787, only the year before he died, he continued the same degrading practice. See a letter from Sir J. E. Smith, written from Naples in March 1787, in Smith's Correspond. vol. i. p. 208. Another letter, written as early as 1761 (Grenville Papers, vol. i. p. 366), describes ‘the young Pretender always drunk.’