Chapter I: Part 1

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.

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.