2"" S. No 80., JoLY 11. '570 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



^1 



LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1857. 

 WILKES AKD THE "ESSAY ON WOMAN." 



I come now (ante, p. K) to the further statement 

 of Lord Stanhope that Wilkes, " several years be- 

 fore [1763], and in some of his looser hours, com- 

 posed a parody of Pope's Essay on Man," which, 

 ^' according to his own account, had cost him a great 

 deal of pains and time ; " and that the " poem had 

 remained in manuscript, and lain in Wilkes's desk, 

 until in the previous spring [1763] . . he was 

 tempted to print fourteen copies only as presents 

 to his boon companions." 



For this circumstantial narrative I know not 

 the authority. As, however, if I succeed in my 

 general argument, and raise a doubt as to whether 

 Wilkes was the writer of the poem, the whole 

 will, of itself, vanish into thin air, or be weakened 

 according to the force of that doubt — it will be 

 enough, for the present, if I draw attention to the 

 assertion that Wilkes acknowledged himself to be 

 the writer; for the allegation as to "pains and 

 time" means that or means nothing. I«Jow, vo- 

 luble as was the tongue, facile the pen of Wilkes, 

 and constant his reference to the subject, I do 

 not think that either word or letter of his can be 

 produced to justify this statement. It is true that 

 Wilkes often talked and wrote enigmatically, — it 

 was in his nature not to deny anything when 

 charged with it as criminal — all parties, indeed, 

 talked enigmatically, for no one cared to fix the 

 authorship on a dead man. It is true that Mi- 

 chael Curry, the compositor who stole the copy, 

 and who subsequently declared on oath that he 

 had received " instructions " from the Solicitor of 

 the Treasury as to " what he should say," did de- 

 pose to that effect ; and the question and answer 

 will show how well all parties were " instructed ; " 

 for no man would have asked so absurd and irre- 

 levant a question who did not foreknow the 

 answer. 



" Did Mn Wilkes say anything to you about what 

 number of years he Avas in composing the work? — He in- 

 formed me tliat it took him a great deal of pains and 

 time to compose it. " 



If we are to believe with unquestioning faith 

 the deposition of this single government witness, 

 what are we to say of all the patriots, as we call 

 them, who were convicted on the evidence of two 

 or more witnesses, and after a searching cross- 

 examination ? Yet here is one only — a servant 

 who had avowedly robbed his master — a man 

 with a handsome provision promised for life if he 

 established the case, which was only to damage 

 the moral character of the master he had robbed, 

 not to hang him, about which the witness might 

 have had some scruple — a thief not condemned 

 because in law phrase taken with the mainour, 



but holding up the mainour as if it were a testi- 

 monial to his character — a witness deposing what 

 he pleased to a confiding and rejoicing audience, 

 and without fear of a cross-examination — yet the 

 historian records this deposition as if it were an ac- 

 knowledgment of guilt by the accused! 



What authority there may be for the statement 

 that the poem " had remained in manuscript and 

 lain in Wilkes's desk until the previous spring," 

 that is, until it was delivered to Curry to be 

 printed, I cannot conjecture. Theetidence leads 

 me to a different conclusion. Of course it would 

 greatly damage Wilkes if the government could 

 create and circulate an opinion — which many of 

 the ministers assumed and believed — which the 

 king believed, and he we now know was the real 

 prosecutor, and prosecuted against the judgment 

 of George Grenville, then minister — that Wilkes 

 was the author. The prosecuting attorney em- 

 ployed by the Solicitor of the Treasury had no 

 doubt, and prepared his case accordingly. I have 

 a copy of his bill before me, and it contains some 

 curious items ; amongst others, for attending with 

 copies of the depositions at Mr. Grenville's and at 

 St. James's. But the following is more immedi- 

 ately to my purpose : 



£ s. d. 



« Nov. 4, 1763. Attending at Mr. Webb's in 



Queen Street all day taking examination 



as to Mr. Wilkes being the author, printer, 



and publisher of the Essay on Woman - 2 2 



Paid coach hire for Mr. Kidgell, Mr. Fadan, 



and Curry, that day - - - 7 6 



Several attendances on Mr. Webb relating 

 to this matter preparatory to the com- 

 plaint intended in the House of Lords - 1 6 8 

 12th. Attending all day at Mr. Webb's 

 methodising the evidence and transcribing 

 with my own hand a fair copy for Lord 

 Sandwich, that the matter might be kept 

 secret - - - - -220 



13th. Attending Mr. Webb and the wit- 

 nesses all day preparatory to the motions 2 2 

 14th. Attending all this day on the same - 2 2 

 16th. Attending the House of Lords on the 

 complaint made there against Mr. Wilkes 2 2 0" 



After all this training and methodising — and 

 the principal witness Cui-ry "for several weeks 

 lodged and boarded in Webb's house," and re- 

 ceived instructions " what he should say " — it 

 must be quite evident that Lord Sandwich knew 

 what to ask, and the witness what to answer. 

 There was evidently some skill required in asking 

 questions about authorship, as probably Sand- 

 wich knew better than either the witness or the 

 attorney — still it was an important point — it 

 would barb the arrow — and therefore there was 

 to be an examination as to handwriting. The 

 handwriting of what ? Of the poem ? No. Of 

 " four words " — corrections on the margin of a 

 proof — and the handwriting of " the copy of the 

 frontispiece in which the name of Dr. Warburton 

 is printed at length." 



