Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

known to Lady Mary. Can any one wonder that, with such misleading lights, the more careful and critical the reader, the more he was sure to be perplexed with doubts?

We could go on with our illustrations through a dozen more columns; but may reserve what further we have to say till the second volume is published.

SWIFT, &c.

SWIFT OR BOLINGBROKE: WHICH OR NEITHER ?

SWIFT, as is well known, wrote Remarks on the Barrier Treaty. Subsequently there appeared Remarks on the Barrier Treaty, vindicated in a Letter to the Author. Who was the writer of this ? * If there be any information on the subject in any of the Lives of Swift, it has escaped me. Presumptively it was not written by Swift; for, with all his strange odd fancies, I cannot believe that he would have addressed a letter to himself by way of vindicating himself. The fact was open to misconstruction-might have become known, and been used as a weapon of offence against him.

I have, on very insufficient evidence, come to the conclusion that this pamphlet was written by Bolingbroke, although it is not named amongst the works bequeathed to Mallet, nor included in any of the collected editions of his works, nor referred to in any published memoir, so far as I have observed. The pamphlet is written with great ability, quite equal to Swift's Remarks; but there is not one of those colloquial passages usually found, here and there, in Swift's writings; none of those occasional bursts of contempt for an adversary; and, on the whole, more than usual, with Swift, of sustained dignity and refinement. The weapon is not of better metal, but is of a finer polish.

My opinion that it was written by Bolingbroke is not founded

* In the Occasional Writer, No. 1, included amongst Bolingbroke's Works (p. 208), mention is made of "that excellent treatise The Barrier Treaty Vindicated." This has no weight with me; but to those in whom it might raise a doubt, I submit that, giving full force to the objection, it would prove only that it had been written at Bolingbroke's suggestion, and was excellent, because it enforced his arguments.

on style only. Questions are raised therein, and speculations thrown out not bearing immediately on the subject under discussion, to which Swift was indifferent, but which Bolingbroke may have been anxious to get circulated and to see passing current. Bolingbroke, as we now know, was, while minister, in communication with the Pretender; so Harley, so Marlborough, Whigs and Tories alike. But, so far as Bolingbroke is concerned, the difficulty has been to reconcile this fact with the positive assertions in his Letter to Windham, and in The State of Parties. In the one he writes, "Nothing is more certain than this truth, that there was at that time no formed design, whatever views some particular men might have, against His Majesty's [George I.] succession." Here, however, the denial refers to a particular time, to a formed design, and may therefore pass; the natural inference, indeed, is, that at some other time there was a formed design against His Majesty's succession. But in The State of Parties he speaks, as generally assumed, positively. He there asserts that under Harley's ministry there was no design to "place the crown on the head of the Pretender." This is thought to be clear and unconditional,-an untruth of a very gross character; and even his biographers give him up. In the celebrated article in the Edinburgh Review, generally attributed to Lord Brougham, it is urged that Bolingbroke, the minister, had professed "inviolable attachment to the Revolution Settlement,"-" the Revolution Settlement had obtained Bolingbroke's deliberate (official and public) approbation."

Excuse me if I attempt to reconcile these seeming contradictions by the aid of the pamphlet under consideration; and if what I have to say be thought a little over-refined, be it remembered that over-refinement in such matters-equivocation, if you please-was almost a condition of existence at that period, and had been for half a century, of kings and commonwealths, de jures and de factos.

Bolingbroke is here said to have approved, as minister, of the Revolution Settlement-that is, on broad general principles, the settlement, under contingencies, of the crown of England on the next Protestant heir after the death of Queen Anne;

and it remains to be seen whether there was anything in his conduct, while minister, that tended "to place the crown on the head of the Pretender." Bolingbroke, observe, names a "Pretender," the "Pretender." Now, who was the Pretender? And why was he a Pretender? We must take care, in such inquiries, not to be misled by words and their popular signification. Bolingbroke, in reply, would probably have referred to the Act of Settlement, which sets forth that the Princess Sophia "be, and is hereby declared to be, the next in succession in the Protestant line to the crown of England," and that, in default, &c., the said crown shall remain to the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants." That is to say, in case of 'default,' the Princess Sophia is declared to be next in succession, because she is the first Protestant in succession; and the son of King James is a pretender, because he assumes to have a right contrary to that law, he being a Catholic. Another act for the better securing the succession "in the Protestant line," enacts that "The Privy Council at the time of Her Majesty's demise" are "to cause the next Protestant successor to be proclaimed," &c. Now suppose that the Chevalier, the natural heir, the son of King James, the brother of Queen Anne, had turned Protestant, would there have been 'default'; would he under these acts have been disqualified ?* Probably, in 1855, the answer would be "Yes;" although that does not appear to me quite certain, and might have been still more doubtful in those stirring times, when so many consciences had lost their guiding light and suffered wreck. But as it is admitted, I believe, by all writers, that both Bolingbroke and Harley made it a positive condition,† in all their nego

*See a curious letter, in proof that this was the view of the Ministers, from Schutz, of the 16th February, 1714. Macpherson Papers, ii. 556.

+ Bolingbroke's whole argument, in reply to letter from Avignon (see letter to Windham, p. 168, &c.), is founded on the assumption that Windham and the Tories believed that the Prince would turn Protestant; that he took it for granted that as Windham and the Tories were willing to declare for the Prince, they had received entire satisfaction on the Article of Religion'; that he, Bolingbroke (p. 169), "would never submit to be governed by a Prince who was not of the religion of our country" for reasons there given (p. 168), and that he never doubted on this point until just before Queen Anne's death, when he received a letter from the Prince declaring his resolution to adhere to Popery, and the effect,

« ZurückWeiter »