Decorative bannerCHAPTERXIV.(1717.)
Decorative banner
thestreets this year were occasionally disturbed, but violence gradually abated. Now and then there were sorrowful sights, as exasperating as they were full of sorrow. One of these was the procession of a hundred chained Preston prisoners from the Savoy to the lower part of the Thames, where they were embarked to serve as slaves in the West Indies. Such freight did not invariably reach its destination. A few months previously, a similar freight of thirty prisoners, similarly bound, rose upon the crew, got possession of the vessel, and carried her to France, where they sold the ship and quietly settled themselves in trade or service. There was a procession of another sort, from Cheapside to Charing Cross, in January (soon after the king’s return to England), by torchlight, which, we are told, was very acceptable to those who saw it. It ended by burning the figures of Pope, Pretender, &Co., at the latter place, after which the mob drank his Majesty’s health. Thereupon, the officers at the windows of YoungMan’s coffee-house ‘returned thanks,’ and civilians at other windows followed with similar speeches! All anniversaries did not pass so happily, because the Whigs were the most readily irritated.…. A man with an oak apple in his hat, on May 29th, walked the causeway in danger of a broken head, and a too audacious fellow mounting a turnip was certain to be knocked down, as insulting King George (who had threatened to turnSt.James’s Park into a turnip ground), unless the bearer of the audacious symbol took the initiative, with confederates, and knocked down those who looked at him too angrily. Ruffianism was not confined to the common folk afoot. There is record of a gentleman leaping from his chariot to tear a white rose from the bosom of a Jacobite young lady, on the Pretender’s birthday—and, after lashing her with his whip, flinging the poor girl to a Whig mob to be stript pretty well naked, but a body of more gallant Jacks rushed in and escorted the young lady home.
BISHOP ATTERBURY.
Secretly, out of the streets, treason was quietly at work.—How early the Jacobites were again actively engaged in London, in pursuit of their purpose, is shown in the fact that Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, was then in correspondence with ‘JamesIII.’ That prince seems to have been impatient at Atterbury’s silence as to how the new project was progressing. ‘I depended upon it,’ said the prelate in his letter of reply, ‘that the best construction would be put upon that silence by one who was well acquainted with the manner in which I was employed,’ The bishop was then in the fullstrength of his manhood and his intellect. Born in 1662, the son of a country parson, he passed creditably through Westminster and Oxford. He was ordained priest in his 30th year, and was one of the most ‘pushing’ men of his time. When a tutor at the University, he complained to his father of the unsatisfactoriness of his prospects. The father treated his son to both rebuke and counsel. ‘You have only,’ he said, ‘to put your trust in God, and marry a Bishop’s daughter!’ Atterbury did as well by marrying Kate Osborn, daughter of Sir Thomas Osborn, a pretty girl, with a handsome dower of 7,000l.
JACOBITE CONGREGATIONS.
The course taken by Atterbury was known to a few only; but there was strong suspicion against him and Sacheverel. The Whigs sent ‘note-takers’ to write down the remarks made by them in the pulpit, and the muscular Christians and Jacobites flung these reporters into the street. On the last Sunday in May, after the Act of Grace had been issued, Dr. Sacheverel preached atSt.Clement’s, in the Strand, ‘a virulent and railing sermon. He was attended,’ according to the Whig papers, ‘by a numerous mob who testified their approbation of his Billingsgate discourse, by huzzaing him to his coach. So that we find other Princes have savage Beasts to govern, besides the Czar of Muscovy.’ It took very little to offend the orthodox Whigs. In July, after the trial of the Earl of Oxford had come to nothing, that nobleman, with his son and brother, attended at Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, and took the sacrament! The clerk was savagely censured, by Whig writers, forselecting the 124th Psalm to be repeated on this occasion, ‘in respect of which,’ say the loyal papers, ‘we refer our readers to their Common Prayer Books,’—where they would find the acknowledgment that the Lord saveth him against whom the wicked combine.—A much more serious affair was the mustering of the drummers of the Guards in front of Lord Oxford’s house, where they beat a point of war, in congratulation of his escape. That they were all locked up in the Marshalsea, on bread and water, was a small penalty for such impudent insubordination.
LIBERTY USED, AND ABUSED.
It was said of the motive which produced the Act of Grace that the king, having nothing to fear, was inclined to be merciful. The messengers’ houses were cleared of ‘the King’s witnesses’ (men who had saved their necks by giving testimony against their old Jacobite comrades)—where they had been in custody, and Jacobite gentlemen captives were removed from the Tower, Newgate, and Marshalsea, to the more tolerable custody of the messengers. Several were persuaded to ask for transportation, and they obtained it as a favour. The ministry had so softened that, hearing Lord Duffus had not wherewithal to subsist handsomely in the Tower, they allowed him three pounds, weekly! They were a little troubled when they found that the prisoners at large resorted publicly to Nonjuring chapels, and that they talked too loudly and insolently in Jacobite coffee-houses. This was not the case with all. One of the Mackintoshes, called ‘the Laird,’ was so touched by the royal clemency, he protested thatif another rebellion should ever break out, he would lead a thousand of his clan in support of King George.JACOBITES AT LARGE.On the other hand, one of the Talbots talked so saucily, when the order of release for himself and others came down to Newgate, that he was detained in custody to teach him better manners. So, Dalzell, uncle of Lord Carnwath, who had been condemned to die, but was removed, with others, to wardship under a messenger, was re-committed to the Tower, for ‘impudently frequenting company who talked too freely against the present government, and whose seditious and licentious pamphlets were read and handed about.’ Meanwhile, mobs hailed or hissed Lord Lansdowne when he was released from the Tower, and even the street Whigs refrained from pelting Sir William Wyndham as he crossed Old Palace Yard, after being discharged at the King’s Bench Bar, Westminster. A few called him ‘Flat Nose,’ popular slang for Tory! For the poorer Jacobites at large, and for the political prisoners in custody, raffles were got up, almost exclusively by active and sympathising women, ‘for the use of the unhappy persons in confinement.’ Articles of dress and diet were constantly being sent to these captives, and not unfrequently (and generally by generous and courageous women’s help), a prisoner, from time to time, made his escape.
AN ENTRY IN A CASH BOOK.
The Act of Grace, however, which was dated May 6th, was slow in taking effect—especially in the cases of the peers. It was not till September that a pardon passed the seals—for Lord Duffus. In November,Lords Carnwath and Widdrington, and in December Lord Nairn, pleaded their pardon, on their knees, at the bar of the House of Lords, and were discharged. Provision was made for them, out of their own estates, to Widdrington, 400l.; to Carnwath, 200l.; and to Lord Nairn, 150l.a year. To Lord Duffus, having nothing, nothing was given. Lord Nairn’s case will show how slowly liberty, with confiscation of estates, was effected. When Lord Nairn walked, a comparatively free man, across Tower Hill, in August, to a messenger’s house, he had been in confinement a year and eight months. He was committed to the Tower in December, 1715, and was liberated in August, 1717. During that time, he was obliged to pay 3l.a week for his chamber, and 1l.as wages for the warden who waited on and guarded him. Eleven months more were spent before Lord Nairn got back again to Scotland. He was in London under a sort ofsurveillance. Six months after his enlargement, he had to appear before the House of Peers, ‘to get up his bail and make his recognizance,’ so that he did not return to his own home till July, 1718, all which cost him about 4,000l.Much of the money went to legal advisers and Court ladies. Lord Nairn set this down in his account book, in this blunt fashion, ‘Gave to Lawyers and Bitches, during that time, 1,500l.’
BISHOP ATTERBURY, THE CHEVALIER’S AGENT.
At the very time Lord Nairn, by effect of the Act of Grace, left the Tower, Atterbury, as his published correspondence now reveals, was conspiring in the interest of JamesIII.To this prince, the bishopaddressed a letter from London, in which is the following passage:—‘My actions, I hope, have spoken for me better than any letters could do.… I have for many years past neglected no opportunity (and particularly no advantage my station afforded me) towards promoting the service.… My daily prayer to God is that you may have success in the just cause wherein you are engaged. I doubt not but He will at last grant it, and in such a manner as to make it a blessing not only to your fast friends and faithful servants, but even to those who have been and are still averse to the thoughts of it. God be thanked, their numbers increase daily.… May I live to see that day’ (of success to the Stuarts) ‘and live no longer than I do whatever is in my power to forward it.’
On the other hand, to cultivate loyalty and gain popularity, the Prince and Princess of Wales continued to make the Thames their highway, in summer time. They made frequent voyages to Putney and Hampton Court, and did not forget to propitiate those who were worth the trouble of it. Oxford, for the most part, hated the royal Hanoverian family. On one of these water excursions, the Princess, meeting an Oxford barge, went on board. She ate of the barge meat and bread, and drank out of the bargemen’s bowl. To each of the men, she gave two guineas. The men, after arriving at Oxford, went through the city with tokens in their hats; ‘and,’ says Hearne, ‘carrying their bowl to Balliol College, were made drunk there, by the care of Dr. Baron, our Vice-Chancellor.’
MORE PROSECUTIONS.
Notwithstanding these amenities, those in authority were conscious that danger threatened ‘the happy establishment,’ and their ‘messengers’ were kept actively employed. In the course of this year a messenger and constables entered a house in Plough Yard, Fetter Lane, and arrested one of the inmates. His name was Francia, and he passed for a Jew and general dealer. Letters and papers were seized in his room. They treated of business in such a way as to read also very like treason, at least, they could be so interpreted. Francia was carried before Lord Townshend, Secretary of State. He and Mr. Harvey of Combe were charged with holding traitorous correspondence with Alban Butler of Cambray, and the Duke d’Aumont. Francia seems to have been, at once, pressed to give evidence against Harvey. At the interview with Lord Townshend, the latter put in Francia’s hand five guineas. The Secretary said it was done out of charity. Francia looked on it as a bribe. He took the money, and as he failed to be as communicative as it was at first hoped he would be, Francia was committed to Newgate. At his trial, he challenged nearly every juryman on the panel. One of them was a Sir Dennis Dutry, latinized on the usual list as ‘Dionysius,’ which, Francia insisted, was not Latin for Dennis, but the Chief Baron declared that itwas, and, after many other frivolous objections were disposed of, the trial proceeded; Francia pleading ‘Not Guilty.’
TRIAL OF FRANCIA.
Jekyll, in opening the case, used a singular expression with regard to the rebellion of ‘15, which, he said,‘was not publicly known till his Majestywas pleased, in July, to acquaint the public with the coming invasion.’ The letters and papers seized in Francia’s lodgings referred to business transactions, under which form the rebellion was clearly to be understood. The prisoner’s defence was that he was an alien, born at Bordeaux, in 1675, and owed no allegiance to King George, but also, that he had practised no treason against him. The main feature of the defence was that Francia was accused because he had refused to bear false evidence against Harvey, for which purpose Townshend had given him money. One Mary Meggison swore that being in the same room in Newgate, with Francia, she heard an agent of the Government press Francia to swear Harvey’s life away. If the agent did not see her it was because the room was ‘the Lion’s den’ and was as ‘dark as pitch.’ Lord Townshend swore by all his great gods, that he had been moved solely by compassion when he put the five guineas into Francia’s hands,—partly, however, also, as it would seem, because Francia, when he was first brought before my Lord, had made some disclosures, and had sworn to the truth of them on a Hebrew book—produced in court. ‘Ah!’ said Mr. Hungerford, the Jew’s counsel, taking up the book, ‘I understand a little Hebrew. This is a book to pray by—not swear by. It is a collection of Jewish prayers and rituals, I believe taken out of Maimonides. You had better send it to the learned Montfaucon in Paris; he is compiling some critical observations on the Eastern languages.’ Whatpurpose that might have served does not appear. The only important circumstance was that the Secretary of State swore vehemently one way; the Jew, as vehemently in an opposite direction; and that the Jury believing Francia—acquitted him accordingly.—The subsequent jollity in Fetter Lane, and Jacobite resorts, generally, showed that Francia, be he what he might, was not a supporter of ‘the Elector of Hanover.’
PATTEN’S ‘HISTORY OF THE LATE REBELLION.’
Support came from other quarters—from the Press and from the Stage;—from Mr. Patten, the priest, and Colley Cibber, the player. In literature, undoubtedly,thebook of the year, 1717, was the Rev. Mr. Patten’s ‘History of the late Rebellion. With original papers and characters of the principal noblemen and gentlemen concerned in it.’ Baker and Warner’s shop, theBlack Boy, in Paternoster Row, was beset with parties purchasing, or with footmen sent to purchase, copies. The ex-Jacobite knave who wrote it had the impudence to dedicate it to the Generals Carpenter and Wills. He quite as impudently gave assurance to the world, that it was to ‘their prudent management and unshaken bravery,’ at Preston, ‘animated by the Justice of theCause,’ that the defeat of the Rebels (‘unfortunate Gentlemen, whose principles were once my own,’ but ‘some of which kept themselves warm in a Chimney Corner during the Heat of the Action’) was to be attributed.
SLANDER AGAINST THE JACOBITES.
Of the fate of those who perished on the scaffold he speaks unfeelingly. Of others, he asserts that they did not hesitate to bribe all who would take theirmoney, ‘and by that means, not unfrequently gained their ends.’ And to this assertion, the frocked rascal adds the following precious remark:—‘It may be said, in the Face of Heaven, that fairer Trials were never allowed, at least, to Men who so little deserved it.’—The critics in the coffee-houses and taverns must have felt the regret they may have feared to express, that the Reverend Robert Patten had not also had a trial and an issue in accordance with his deserts.
Patten especially hated these tavern and coffee-house critics. In his book, he is never weary of depreciating such Jacobites. He wrote of them summarily and contemptuously in 1717, as ‘a party who are never right hearty for the Cause, till they are mellow, as they call it, over a bottle or two.… They do not care for venturing their carcasses any further than the Tavern. There indeed, with theirHigh Church and Ormond! they would make men believe, who do not know them, that they would encounter the greatest opposition in the world, but after having consulted their pillows, and the fumes a little evaporated, it is to be observed of them that they generally become mighty tame, and are apt to look before they leap; and, with the snail, if you touch their houses they hide their heads, shrink back, and pull in their horns. I have heard Mr. Forster say he was blustered into this business by such people as these, but that, for the time to come, he would never again believe a drunken Tory.’
PATTEN’S DETAILS.
Patten’s narrative greatly amused the Londoners, who were the first to read it. He delights in it, inspeaking sarcastically of the Clergy, whether they were High-flyers or of the lower-soaring party. He describes the perplexity into which he, and other parsons with the Jacobite army, put simple country vicars and their curates by requiring them to pray for ‘JamesIII., Mary, Queen Mother, and all the dutiful branches of the Royal Family!’ Some clerics modestly declined and handed their churches to Patten or his colleague, Buxton. Others, simply refused, but sat in church, and while Patten, in the pulpit, prayed for James, they made mental protest which was taken as acquiescing. Patten confesses that he himself preached genuine Jacobite sermons. One of the strongest against King George was on the text, Deut.XXI., 17, ‘The right of the first-born.’ Patten so well served the Hanoverian Right, after he came to London, that the king could not hang him, as he deserved. This cleric seemed even to be sorry at the escape of some of his confederates who didnotturn king’s evidence. There was Edward Tildesley, the Papist who was acquitted by the jury of the Marshalsea, ‘though,’ says the scandalised Patten, ‘it was proved that he had a troop and entered Preston at the head of it with his sword drawn.But his sword had a Silver Handle!’ In another instance, he seems to turn unconsciously to his Jacobite proclivities, and probably there was many a laugh in the Jacobite Walk, in the Park, over Patten’s story of one Mr. Guin, who went into all the churches on the way of the march, where Patten served as chaplain, ‘and scratched out his Majesty King George’s name, and placed thePretender’s so nicely that it resembled print very much, and the alteration could scarce be perceived.’
DOWNRIGHT SHIPPEN.
An idea still prevailed, with ministers, that loyalty could be secured by binding it by an oath. One of the curious sights of the year was the assembling, by summons, of a thousand Middlesex tavern-keepers in front of Hicks’s Hall, where announcement was made to them that, in future, no licence would be granted save to those who had taken the oath of allegiance before the justices of the various parishes. Later in the year, a justice of the peace and a posse of constables pounced upon Dr. Welton (the Jacobite ex-rector of Whitechapel), and his Non-conformist congregation, in their place of meeting. There were about 250 Nonjurors present. The constables interrupted the service, and proceeded to administer the oath. Many indignantly refused to take it, and these were arrested on the spot, or were ordered for trial, by a justice, who allowed them their bail.
SHIPPEN, ON GEORGEI.
In this year occurred the famous incident in the House of Commons—on occasion of the king asking a grant of money to provide against a Swedish invasion. Downright Jacobite Shippen felt as others felt, that the demand was for English money to be applied to the defending of Hanover. Shippen opposed the reception of the message, on the ground of want of detailed information. He added that such a proceeding was unparliamentary, and that it was to be regretted that the king was as ignorant of parliamentary rules as he was of the English language. A committee, however, was formed, which, by a majority of 15, proposed a grantof a quarter of a million; but the question, when submitted to the House, was carried by four votes only—153 to 149. This almost compensated the Jacobites for what they had suffered this year by Bishop Hoadly’s ‘Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the Nonjurors.’ The High Church priesthood took some little comfort from it, too. The bishop’s sermon on ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ had seemed to deny them all temporal power. It led to the famous Bangorian Controversy which ultimately deprived Convocation, for ever, of being actively mischievous. The Nonjuring preachers were violent in their pulpits. And the Nonjurors were out-done in Parliament by that outspoken member, Shippen.
In December, the king opened Parliament with a speech, which the ‘Downright’ representative treated as that of his ministers. He discussed it and the measures recommended in it, with the utmost freedom. ‘We are,’ he said, ‘at liberty to debate every proposition in it, especially those which seem rather calculated for the meridian of Germany than of Great Britain. ’Tis the only infelicity of his Majesty’s reign, that he is unacquainted with our language and constitution; and ’tis therefore the more incumbent on his British ministers to inform him that our government does not stand on the same foundation with his German dominions, which (by reason of their situation and the nature of their constitution) are obliged to keep up standing armies in time of peace.’—Lechmere, Solicitor-General, moved that the words be taken down, and the speaker of thembe sent to the Tower. Shippen would not retract anything he had uttered against maintaining an army of sixteen thousand men in time of peace. A majority of 175 to 81 sent him to the Tower.
Shippen’s speech was delivered on December 4th. Two days later, an attack against the disaffected party was made from the stage. The assailant was Colley Cibber; his weapon was the comedy, which he adapted from Molière’s ‘Tartuffe,’ and called ‘The Nonjuror.’ The town was in a ferment, and it would be difficult to say which faction was the more excited.
CIBBER’S ‘NONJUROR.’
A glance at the dedication of ‘The Nonjuror’ to the king will not be superfluous. It will throw light on more than one illustration of this Jacobite time. Cibber addresses the king as ‘Dread Sir,’ and calls himself ‘the lowest of your Subjects.’ He justifies his political comedy as a proof ‘what honest and laudable uses may be made of the Theatre, when its performances keep close to the true purpose of its Institution. It may be necessary,’ he says, ‘to divert the sullen and disaffected from busying their brains to disturb the happiness of a government which (for want of proper amusements) they often enter into wild and seditious schemes to reform.’ Colley then reminds the king that the stage was never suppressed in England ‘but by those very people that turned our Church and Constitution into Irreligion and Anarchy.’ The Jacobites (by the way) might readily accept this remark, seeing the ‘people’ who overset Church and King, and established Irreligion and Anarchy, were the ‘Whigs’ of that day who slew the royal grandfather of that ‘Chevalierwhom the Jacobites of the present time hoped to set up as their lawful king. Cibber professed to have made these Jacobites ridiculous, in ‘The Nonjuror,’ in order to make them ashamed of their cause! He affected to deplore that this loyal work had nobody better than ‘a Comedian’ for its author. In such an undertaking by such a low personage, his wise Majesty might discern an ‘unlicensed boldness.’ Yet, the undertaking exposes ‘rebellious and unchristian tenets.’—Colley takes further comfort in the following Cibberian style: ‘Nay, I have yet a further hope, that it has even discovered the strength and number of theMisguidedto be much less than may have been artfully insinuated, there being no Assembly where People are so free and so apt to speak their minds as in a crowded Theatre; of which, Your Majesty may have lately seen an instance in the insuppressible Acclamations that were given on your appearing to honour this Play with your Royal presence.’
DEDICATION TO THE KING.
That was on the first night. The ‘irrepressible acclamations’ of the packed audience were still living in their echoes when the curtain rose for the Prologue. The king smiled when the house laughed aloud at the threat it contained that the play would treat the Jacobites roughly.
Good breeding ne’er commands us to be civilTo those who wish our Nation at the devil!
Good breeding ne’er commands us to be civilTo those who wish our Nation at the devil!
Good breeding ne’er commands us to be civil
To those who wish our Nation at the devil!
The Whig faction thoroughly enjoyed the allusions to the Nonjuring parson, who rallied his flock in closeback-rooms, reigned the patriarch of blind lanes and alleys, and who fulminated excommunications from London garrets. When the play began, Mrs. Oldfield and Booth, by their exquisite acting, almost made both factions overlook the political allusions.
SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES.
The passages which excited the greatest enthusiasm included the following:Colonel Woodville’sallusion to the Nonjuring pamphlet, ‘The Case of Schism,’ and his comment, ‘I have seen enough of that inThe Daily Courant, to be sorry it is in any hands but those of the common Hangman.’ Next,Maria’sremark to her brother: ‘Why, you look as if the Minority had been likely to have carried a Question.’ When theColonelnotices toWolfthat, in prayer, the latter (a Nonjuring clergyman, nearly a Romanist) nevernamesthe Royal family, the answer stirred much laughter: ‘That’s only to shorten the service, lest, in so large a family some few, vain, idle souls might think it tedious; and we ought, as it were, to allure them to what’s good, by the gentlest, easiest manner we can.’ The laughter was louder still in the subsequent words, ‘But, why, Sir, isnamingthem so absolutely necessary, when Heaven, without it, knows the true intention of our hearts?’—And the Jacobites themselves may have ventured on murmuring approbation atWolf’swords, ‘Power, perhaps, may change its hands, and you, ere long, as little dare to speak your mind as I do!’ But the Whigs had their turn when theColonelexclaimed, ‘Traitor! but that our Laws have chains and gibbets for such villains, I’d this moment crackle all thy bones to splinters.’No doubt the laughter was at its loudest when theColonelread the list ofDr. Wolf’sexpenses, on behalf of the Jacobite interest, which list had fallen from the Nonjuror’s pocket. It ran to thiseffect:—
JACOBITE OUTLAY.
ADVANTAGES OF CLAMOUR.
The above really includes much of what was then going on in the London of that Jacobite time. According as the dates marked Hanoverian or Stuart anniversaries, so was the outlay for material of a hostile or pleasant nature, rue or roses, oaken-boughs or putting out of Whig bonfires, punch for Jacobite prisoners in Newgate, and money for aid to various sorts of traitors. In a later passage,Sir John Woodville(a Jacobite) objects, however, to the employment of dissolute and abandoned fellows for whom the pillory and gallows seem to groan. To which objection,Dr. Wolfanswers with this remarkable introduction of party politics, on the stage: ‘’Tis true, indeed, and I have often wish’d ’t were possible to do without them; but in a multitude all men won’t be Saints, and then again, they are really useful; nay, and in many things that sober men will not stoop to.… They serve, poor men, to bark at the Government in the open streets, and keep up the wholesome spirit of Clamour in the common people;—and, Sir, you cannot conceive the wonderful use of Clamour; ’tis so teasing to a Ministry; it makes them wince andfret, and grow uneasy in their posts.… Ah! many a comfortable point has been gain’d by Clamour; ’tis in the nature of mankind to yield more to that than to Reason. E’en Socrates himself could not resist it, for, wise as he was, yet you see his wife Xantippe carried all her points by Clamour. Come, come, Clamour is a useful monster, and we must feed the hungry mouths of it, it being of the last importance to us that hope to change the Government, to let it have no quiet.’
POLITICAL ALLUSIONS.
One may fancy the glances that went up to the royal box on the king’s nights, when the above words were emphasised; and the smiles among the Jacobite ladies, whenWolfpaid the following compliment to their White Rose fidelity: ‘To give them their due, we have no Spirits among us like the Women; the Ladies have supported our Cause with a surprising constancy. Oh! there’s no daunting them even with ill-success! They will starve their very Vanities, their Vices, to feed their Loyalty! I am informed that my good Lady, Countess of Night-and-day, has never been seen in a new gown, or has once thrown a die at any of the Assemblies, since our last general Contribution.’ And once more the house must have rung with derisive laughter whenWolf, alone on the stage, sneered at Jacobite Sir John, in the popular phrase, as an idiot for supposing ‘that a Protestant church can never be secure till it has a Popish Prince to defend it.’
Allusions of kingly clemency to repentant rebels were not wanting in the play, but the most audaciouspassage in it was this sketch ofWolf, in which the audience recognised a portrait of Patten. ‘He went with us, Madam, none so active in the front of Resolution, till Danger came to face him; then, indeed, a friendly fever seized him, which, on the first alarm of the king’s forces marching towards Preston, gave him a cold pretence to leave the town’.…
INCENSE FOR THE KING.
The political passages were skilfully enough worked into the dramatic story. With them, there was no lack of incense for the king or prince to savour. The daintiest dish of this sort was to be found inHeartly’saccount of the interview of the pardoned Jacobite,Charles, with his Hanoverian father. ‘The tender father caught him in his arms, and, dropping his fond head upon his cheek, kissed him and sigh’d out,Heaven protect thee!Then gave into his hand theRoyal Pardon, and, turning back his face to dry his manly eyes, he cried, “Deserve this Royal Mercy, and I’m still thyFather!” The grateful youth, raising his heart-swoll’n voice, reply’d,May Heaven preserve the Royal Life that gave it!’ Some could sympathise, others would laugh at this, but how great Augustus looked as he listened, supposing he understood it, is quite beyond conjecture.
A LECTURE FROM THE STAGE.
The Jacobites took it for satire in disguise, and the Whigs, after applauding, got their opportunity for a roar whenSir Johnexpressed his satisfaction atHeartlyhaving been born the year before the Revolution, as he might, in consequence, be taken for a ‘regular Christian’; and the roar was not less whenthis Jacobite,Sir John, was described as a man who, ‘Name to him butRomeorPopery, he startles, as at a Monster, but gild its grossest Doctrines with the Stile ofCatholick English, he swallows down the poison, like a cordial!’ After this fling at the disloyal Ritualists of that day no more religious or political allusions were made to delight or exasperate portions of the audience, tillHeartlydelivered the last speech, which took the form of a little political lecture, as thus: ‘Give me leave to observe that, of all the arts our enemies make use of to embroil us, none seem so audaciously preposterous as their insisting that a Nation’s best security is the Word of a Prince whose Religion indulges him to give it, and at the same time, obliges him to break it. And, though perhaps in lesser points our politick disputes won’t suddenly be ended, methinks there’s one Principle that all Parties might easily come into, that no change of Government can give us a blessing equal to our Liberty;’ and then the too eager applause of the audience was hushed to hear thetag,—
Grant us but this and then of course you’ll own,To guard that Freedom,Georgemust fill the Throne.—
Grant us but this and then of course you’ll own,To guard that Freedom,Georgemust fill the Throne.—
Grant us but this and then of course you’ll own,
To guard that Freedom,Georgemust fill the Throne.—
On uttering which words, Mr. Wilks, asHeartly, bowed to the king. Amid the peals of applause that followed, Mrs. Oldfield swept down the stage to speak the epilogue. It was less indecent than such pieces usually were, and it half apologised for building a play on modern politics. At the same time it justifiedthe proceeding, and claimed merit for ‘executing it with goodfeeling’:—
Even Rebels cannot say,Though vanquished, they’re insulted in this play!
Even Rebels cannot say,Though vanquished, they’re insulted in this play!
Even Rebels cannot say,
Though vanquished, they’re insulted in this play!
PUBLIC FEELING.
They did, however, both say and feel it. There was not a Tory, whether play-goer or otherwise, who ever forgave Cibber for this assault on his principles. Cibber however had no lack of supporters.
‘Last night,’ says Read’s ‘Weekly,’ ‘the comedy called “The Nonjuror” was acted at His Majesty’s Theatre in Drury Lane, which, very naturally displaying the villainy of that most wicked and abominable crew, it gave great satisfaction to all the spectators.’
In the ‘Apology for his Life,’ Cibber gives a just reason for the scarcity of outspoken opposition to his partisan comedy which had a first run of eighteen consecutive days. ‘Happy was it for thisplaythat the very Subject was its Protection. A few Smiles of silent Contempt were the utmost Disgrace that on the first Day of its appearance it was thought safe to throw upon it. As the Satire was chiefly employed upon the Enemies of the Government, they were not so hardy as to own themselves such by any higher Disapprobation or Resentment.’ The Jacobites attacked him in other ways. They accused him of stealing a previous adaptation of Molière’s ‘Tartuffe,’ and the following advertisement showed the spirit of the accusation: ‘This day is published a translation of Molière’s “Tartuffe, or the French Puritan,” by Medbourne, in which maybe seen the plot, characters, incidents, and most part of the language of “The Nonjuror.”’
ATTERBURY’S OPINION.
While this piece was being played, Atterbury, in a letter to Mar, describes the London Jacobites as ‘sitting silent and quiet, and pleasing themselves with the odd management here at home, without raising any expectations from abroad. And in the present situation of affairs I am glad they do not, for our domestic divisions and folly are sufficient for the present to keep up men’s spirits without being told that certain relief is near at hand.… What they see here pleases them so much that they can wait with a little patience for what they do not see or hear.’ And so ended the year of the Act of Grace.
Flower and leaves