Sept, 8. 1855.] 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



177 



LOifDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8. 1855. 



SWIFT OE BOLINGBHOKB : WHICH OE NEITHEB ? 



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 himiSelf 

 by way of vindicating himself. The fact was 

 open to misconstruction — might have become 

 known, and been used as a weapon of ofience 

 against him. 



I have, on very Insufficient evidence indeed, 

 come to the conclusion that this pamphlet was 

 written by Bolingbroke, although it is not named 

 amongst the works bequeathed to Mallet, nor in- 

 cluded in any of the collected editions of his works, 

 or referred to in any published memoir, so far as 

 I have observed. The pamphlet is written with 

 great ability, quite equal to ^yi'iKs 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, with more than 

 usual, with Swift, of sustained dignity and refine- 

 ment. The weapon is not of better metal, but is 

 of a finer polish. 



My opinion that it was written by Boling- 

 broke is not founded on style only. Questions 

 are raised therein, and speculations thrown out 

 not bearing immediately on the subject ander 

 discussion, to which Swift was indifferent, but 

 which Bolingbroke may have been anxious to get 

 circulated and to see passing current. Boling- 

 broke, 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 as- 

 sertions 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 in- 

 ference, indeed, is, that at some other time there 

 was a formed design against His Majesty's suc- 

 cession. But in The Slate 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 Pre- 



No. 306.1 



tender." This is thought to be clear and uncon- 

 ditional, — an untruth of a very gross charac- 

 ter ; 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 pro- 

 fessed " 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 seem- 

 ing contradkitions 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 — equivo- 

 cation, 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 ia, 

 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 re- 

 ferred to the Act of Settlement, which sets forth 

 that the Princess Sophia " be, and is hereby de- 

 clared to be, the next in succession in the Pro- 

 testant 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, she 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 Cheva- 

 lier, the natural heir, the son of King James, the 

 brother of Queen Anne, had turned Protestant, 

 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 Bo- 

 lingbroke and Harley made it a positive condition, 

 in all their negotiations with the Prince, that be- 



