Page images
PDF
EPUB

Ingratitude hath planted daggers there,
No good man can deserve, no brave man bear.

About the same time, a coolness took place between Dr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilkes, on account of the obloquy which the latter was perpetually endeavouring to cast on the Scottish nation in his North Briton; and this led to the disclosure of some rather embarrassing circumstances, respecting the publication of the Epistle which had provoked the ire of Churchhill. Armstrong had always affected to disapprove of its publication, and spoke of it as a production designed only for private perusal. How far this was the real state of the case, will be seen from the following letters, which now appeared in succession in the Public Advertiser, the favorite vehicle of Wilkes, but which have never been republished in any of the biographical collections.

To the Printer of the Public Advertiser.

SIR,

I am not surprised that the patriot of Prince's Court attacks Sir John Dalrymple for his detection of that pseudo patriot, Algernon Sydney, as that same Algernon received the wages of iniquity, as our present worthy patriot does, undoubtedly, at least probably, from the rivals and enemies of our country. But the patriot seems to quit his proper and usual

*Prince's Court was, at that time, the residence of Mr. Wilkes.

A. S.

tract in deceiving only his intimates and friends; for I am assured that Sir John Dalrymple is neither the one nor the other. He always took more delight in exposing his friends than in hurting his enemies. We know, at least I am assured of the fact, that a very worthy and ingenious friend of this impostor trusted him with a jeu d'esprit of a poem, incorrect indeed, but which bore every mark of a true, though ungoverned, genius. This poem, though rough as it was, he carried to A. Millar, late Bookseller in the Strand, and published it in his friend's name, without his knowledge. This is a fact, Mr. Printer; therefore, I think Mr. W. should let alone Scotch writers.

DIES. (Public Advertiser, March 23, 1773.)

In the Public Advertiser of March 24, 1773, there is a letter, which, after quoting the preceding attack of DIES as one of the various calumnies circulated against Mr. Wilkes, thus proceeds

"Your correspondent, sir, is pleased to appeal to a dead Bookseller; I appeal to the living author, who is now in London. He desired the poem might be published it was written for the public eye: he directed the Bookseller to call on Mr. W. for the copy. The Bookseller produced his credentials, under the author's own hand, upon which Mr. W. gave him the manuscript of the poem. It was afterwards published in the kindest way for the author's reputation, as a Fragment. I believe he will not chuse to restore the passages, which were omitted in the first edition of 1760. When he does, the kindness, and perhaps the

judgment, of the Editor will appear, I am told, in a very strong and favourable light. The Poem was not published till the Bookseller had received a second positive order for that purpose, from the author, after several objections to the publication had been transmitted to him in Germany, and amendments made by himself. It was a favourite child, not without merit, although scarcely quite so much as the fond father imagined. Mr. Churchill wrote the four following lines on that poem, which were never forgiven. They are in the Journey.

Or con the pages of his gaping Day,
Where all his former fame was thrown away,
Where all, but barren labour was forgot,
And the vain stiffness of a lettered Scot.'

TRUTH."

To the Printer of the Public Advertiser.

SIR,

I thought that Mr. W's Scotch friend would, ere this day, have forgot that " Day," which it must be confessed added very little reputation to his former literary fame. The cynical empiric ought to remember that it was by his own express orders that Day came to light. I doubt not but the ingenious author of the Sketches has given the aid of his literary talents to Sir John; but methinks he ought to vouchsafe to content himself with giving private applause to what is, in part, his own work, and to avoid puffing up its merits before a public, not very fond of his misanthropical, scotchified, and dull observations. His vain attempts at humour are long known, and as long

despised. If ever Mr. W. honoured him with his company, sure I am, it was more to laugh at his cynical folly and absurdity, than to receive either information or delight from his conversation.

"I desire him, however, to confine his rancorous belchings to the private conversation of his very few friends left. I may be tempted to drag him forth, by name, to public chastisement, for I cannot, with patience, see the hero, to whom we owe our liberty, reviled by the poisonous breath of a man, already detested for his known averson to mankind. This may serve, for this Day, in answer to Dies.

Nox. (Public Advertiser, April 1, 1773.)

These letters, as may well be supposed, gave great offence to Dr. Armstrong.

On the 7th of April, he called on Mr. Wilkes, at his house, and accused him of being the author of this attack on his character, in very abrupt terms.

In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1792, the substance of this conversation, as minuted down (apparently by Mr. Wilkes) immediately after it took place, is preserved, and it is curious.

Mr. Wilkes, on being charged with the attack, observed that he had been roughly treated in the letter signed DIES. "Yes," said the Doctor, "but I believe you wrote that on purpose to bring on the controversy I am almost sure of it." Wilkes refused to answer interrogatories, and referred the Doctor to Mr. Woodfall, the printer.

Dr. A.-"Whoever has abused me, sir, is a villain;

[ocr errors]

and your endeavours, sir, to set Scotland and England together, are very bad."

Mr. Wilkes remarked, that the Scots had done that, thoroughly, by their own conduct; said that he had never attacked the Doctor personally, but on the contrary had complimented him in conjunction with Churchill in his mock Dedication to Mortimer. He appealed to the Doctor, if he had not himself inveighed against Scotland, in the severest terms?

The Doctor answered, "I only did it in joke, sir; you did it in bitterness: besides, it was my country."

After some further conversation, Dr. A. observed, "I was happier with you than any man in the world, for a great many years, and complimented you not a little in the Day.",

Mr. W.-"I am abused, in Dies, for that publication, and for the manner of it, both which you approved."

Dr. A.-" I did so."

Mr. W.-" I was abused at first, I am told, in the manuscript of Dies, for having sold the copy, and put the money in my pocket, but that charge was suppressed in the printed letter."

Dr. A.-"I know nothing of that."

The interview then terminated, without further explanation.

There are two things of which no person will, probably, have any doubt, after perusing these singular proceedings: first, that Wilkes was really, as Armstrong affirmed, the author of the whole of the correspondence in the Public Advertiser, and attacked himself, in order to furnish some sort of apology for be

« PreviousContinue »