Home

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

LETTER LIX.

Learned Printers: Princess Dowager: George III and the East India Company.

Edinburgh,

22 of Feby., 1772.

DearS^ir

As we are drawing near a Conclusion1 , I cannot forbear giving you many and hearty thanks, both for your submitting to so troublesome a Method of printing and for the many useful Corrections you have sent me. I suppose, since the days of Aldus2 , Reuchlin3 , and Stevens4 , there have been no Printers who could have been useful to their Authors in this particular. I shall scarcely ever think of correcting any more; tho’ I own that the receiving of the Sheets regularly by the post has been an Amusement and Occupation to me, which I shall have a Difficulty to supply. I fancy I must take to some kind of Composition in its place.

Pray, have you gone any length in printing the other Volumes, or are you now to begin. In this case, you can scarcely publish this Season. But as you have probably a very large fount5 of this Type, I hope you are pretty well advancd. I need not put you in mind of sending me a dozen Copies of the History, and half a dozen of the philosophical Pieces.

Your Encomium on the Princess Dowager6 is elegantly written, and contains a very proper and spirited Reprehension of the scurrillous and scoundrel Patriots who had so long abus’d her7 . I wonder what they will now do for a Pretence to their Sedition.

I have lately heard a Story, extremely to the King's Advantage; which I shoud be glad to find confirmd. I am told, that this parliamentary Enquiry into the Proceedings of the East India Company did not originally proceed from the Ministry, but from the King himself, who was shockd with the Accounts he receivd of the Oppressions exercisd over the poor Natives, and demanded a Remedy8 . I wish it may be possible to provide any, that will be durable. I trust much in the Integrity of Andrew Stuart9 (who, they say, will certainly be one of the Supervisors10 ) for the carrying of such a Plan into Execution.

I hear also that there is an Intention of appointing Professor Ferguson11 Secretary to the Commission. Surely there is not a man of greater Worth in the World12 . If you have a Vote or Interest, I beseech you, employ it all in his favour, as well for his Advantage as for that of Humanity.

I am Dear S^ir Faithfully Yours

David Hume.

[William Strahan to David Hume.]

[1]Note 1. Hume is speaking of only the first four volumes of the reprint of his History. See ante, p. 183.

[2]Note 2. ‘The politest nations of Europe have endeavoured to vie with one another for the reputation of the finest printing.... If we look into the Commonwealths of Holland and Venice, we shall find that in this particular they have made themselves the envy of the greatest monarchies. Elzevir and Aldus are more frequently mentioned than any pensioner of the one of doge of the other.’ Addison, The Spectator, No. 367.

[3]Note 3. ‘Si on demande quel fut dans notre Europe le premier auteur de ce style bouffon et hardi, dans lequel ont écrit Sterne, Swift et Rabelais, il parait certain que les premiers qui s’étaient signalés dans cette dangereuse carrière avaient été deux Allemands nés au quinzième siècle, Reuchlin et Hutten. Ils publièrent les fameuses Lettres des gens obscurs, longtemps avant que Rabelais dédiât son Pantagruel et son Gargantua au cardinal Odet de Châtillon.’ Œuvres de Voltaire, ed. 1819–25, xlii. 431. I have failed to discover anything that shows that Reuchlin was a printer.

[4]Note 4. ‘Eodem anno [MDLIX] vivis exemptus est Robertus Stephanus Parisiensis typographus regius ... cui non solum Gallia sed universus Christianus orbis plus debet, quam cuiquam fortissimorum belli ducum ob propagatos fineis patria unquam debuit; majusque ex ejus unius industria quam ex tot praeclare bello et pace gestis, ad Franciscum decus et nunquam interitura gloria redundavit.’ Thuanus, ed. 1620, i. 708. Robert Stephens, or Stephanus, was born at Paris in 1503, died at Geneva in 1559. ‘Thuanus asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I than all the renowned actions of that prince.’ Chalmers, Biog. Dict. xxviii. 371.

[5]Note 5. A fount or font of type is ‘a complete assortment of types of one sort, with all that is necessary for printing in that kind of letter.’ Chambers's Ety. Dict. It is not defined in Johnson's Dictionary. Strahan had cast a fresh fount for this edition (ante, p. 187, n. 6).

[6]Note 6. She died on Feb. 8. Her name is given in the Index of Names in the Gentleman's Magazine for that year as ‘Wales Princess.’ Horace Walpole wrote of her on Feb. 12:—‘Nothing ever equalled her resolution. She took the air till within four or five days of her death, and never indicated having the least idea of her danger, even to the Princess of Brunswick, though she had sent for her. Although she had convulsions the day before she expired, she rose and dressed to receive the King and Queen, and kept them four hours in indifferent conversation, though almost inarticulate herself; said nothing on her situation, took no leave of them, and expired at six in the morning without a groan. She could not be unapprised of her approaching fate, for she had existed upon cordials alone for ten days.’ Letters, v. 374. Of Strahan's encomium, which was in the London Chronicle for Feb. 11, I will give a few extracts:—‘She is now in a state far superior to mortal praise or blame, where the lying and malignant voice of faction cannot reach her; and it will now be discovered and believed that never was a more amiable, a more innocent, or a more benevolent Princess. That she interfered in the politics of this country and influenced the King in affairs of state, we will venture to say was utterly void of foundation.... Though she constantly read all the public papers, the unmerited abuse with which they frequently abounded never excited in her the least emotion of anger or resentment.... She was for many years the very idol of the people of England.’

[7]Note 7. See ante, p. 210, n. 26, for Alderman Townsend's attack on her in the House of Commons on March 25, 1771. Horace Walpold wrote on March 15, 1770:—‘As a prelude to what was to follow, rather as the word of battle, Lord Chatham some days ago declared to the Lords, that there is a secret influence (meaning the Princess) more mighty than Majesty itself, and which had betrayed or clogged every succeeding Administration. His own had been sacrificed by it. In consequence of this denunciation, papers to which the North Britons were milk and honey have been published in terms too gross to repeat. The Whisperer and The Parliamentary Spy are their titles. Every blank wall at this end of the town is scribbled with the words, Impeach the King's Mother; and in truth I think her person in danger.’ Letters, v. 229.

[8]Note 8. Horace Walpole wrote to Mann on Feb. 12, 1772:—‘The East Indies are going to be another spot of contention. Such a scene of tyranny and plunder has been opened as makes one shudder! The heaven-born hero1 , Lord Clive, seems to be Plutus, the dæmon who does not give, but engrosses riches. There is a letter from one of his associates to their Great Mogul, in which our Christian expresses himself with singular tenderness for the interests of the Mahometan religion! We are Spaniards in our lust for gold, and Dutch in our delicacy of obtaining it.’ Letters, v. 375. On March 5 he wrote:—‘We have another scene coming to light, of black dye indeed. The groans of India have mounted to heaven, where the heaven-born General Lord Clive will certainly be disavowed. Oh! my dear sir, we have outdone the Spaniards in Peru! They were at least butchers on a religious principle, however diabolical their zeal. We have murdered, deposed, plundered, usurped—nay, what think you of the famine in Bengal, in which three millions perished, being caused by a monopoly of the provisions by the servants of the East India Company? All this is come out, is coming out—unless the gold that inspired these horrors can quash them.’ Ib. p. 378. On March 27 he added:—‘The House of Commons is going to tap the affairs of India, an endless labyrinth! We shall lose the East before we know half its history. It was easier to conquer it than to know what to do with it. If you or the Pope can tell, pray give us your opinion.’ Ib. p. 379.

The Select Committee of Enquiry into the East India Company was not appointed till April 13, 1772. Ann. Reg. 1772, i. 103. The King in his speech of Jan. 21, on opening Parliament, had said:—‘The concerns of this country are so various and extensive as to require the most vigilant and active attention, and some of them, as well from remoteness of place as from other circumstances, are so peculiarly liable to abuses and exposed to danger that the interposition of the legislature for their protection may become necessary.’ Parl. Hist. xvii. 233. In the Correspondence of George III with Lord North (i. 81) is given the following letter:—‘Queen's House, Jan. 6, 1772, 15 min. pt. 5 p.m. Lord North,—The sketch of the Speech meet with my approbation. When the sentences are a little more rounded ... I doubt not but it will make a very good one.’ On this the editor remarks:—‘The sentences are rounded, and almost without meaning.’ That so far from being without meaning, one of them was full of the weightiest meaning, implying at it did a parliamentary enquiry of the highest importance, is shown not only by Hume's mention of this enquiry seven weeks before it was appointed, but also by the Annual Register, 1772, i. 101, and 1773, i. 67. In the latter Burke says:—‘The mal-administration in India, with all its consequences, were [sic] suffered to pass without notice or observation; and we have already seen in the transactions of the year 1772 that, though the affairs of the Company were evidently alluded to at the opening of the session in the speech from the throne, they were nevertheless suffered to lie over till near its close, when a bill was brought in by the deputy-chairman for enlarging the controlling powers of the Company with respect to their servants in India. The bill came to nothing in that session. But a member, though in the King's service, not connected with Ministry, whether with or without their consent, at length awakened their attention to this object. This gave birth to the Select Committee, which was armed with full powers for all the purposes of enquiry.’ The passage which I have printed in italics is some evidence of the truth of the report which had reached Hume.

[9]Note 9. Andrew Stuart was the author of Letters to the Right Hon. Lord Mansfield. In them he attacked that judge for his conduct in the famous Douglas cause, when it came, on appeal, before the House of Lords. That this work, which was never on sale, had been written for publication is shown by the following passage in Strahan's letter to Hume of Jan. 25, 1773:—‘The Letters have been in Lord Mansfield's hands this fortnight, but I have not yet heard how he is affected by them. This will appear in due time. They are not yet made public, only distributed among his friends, but will be published in a few days.’ M.S.R.S.E. Johnson speaking about them to Boswell on April 27, 1773, said:—‘They have not answered the end. They have not been talked of; I have never heard of them. This is owing to their not being sold. People seldom read a book which is given to them.’ Boswell's Life of Johnson, ii. 229. Horace Walpole had written about it on Jan. 25:—‘There is a book you will see that makes and intends to make noise enough.... Indeed it is admirable, and it must be confessed that a Scot dissects a Scot with ten times more address than Churchill and Junius. They know each other's sore places better than we do.’ Letters, v. 430. On May 27 he wrote:—‘The book will be a great curiosity, for after all the author's heroism, fear or nationality have preponderated, and it will not be published.’ Ib. p. 466.

Hume, who was as strong against the successful litigant as Boswell was for him, of course sided with Andrew Stuart. ‘I was struck,’ he wrote on March 28, 1769, ‘with a very sensible indignation at the decision of the Douglas cause, though I foresaw it for some time. It was abominable with regard to poor Andrew Stuart, who had conducted that cause with singular ability and integrity; and was at last exposed to reproach which unfortunately never can be wiped off.’ Burton's Hume, ii. 423. According to Lord Campbell (Lives of the Chancellors, ed. 1846, v. 494), Stuart took so ill the attack made on him in court by Thurlow, who was engaged as counsel on the other side, that he sent him a challenge. ‘Thurlow wrote back for answer that the desired meeting Mr. Stuart should have, but not till the hearing of the appeal was concluded.... They met in Kensington Gardens, and shots were exchanged—happily without effect. Mr. Stuart afterwards declared that Mr. Thurlow advanced and stood up to him like an elephant.’ Lord Campbell adds in a note:—‘A gentleman still alive, who remembers the duel well, says that Thurlow, on his way to the field of battle, stopped to eat an enormous breakfast at a tavern near Hyde Park Corner.’ Dr. Burton (Life of Hume, ii. 425) says that it was not with Thurlow but with Wedderburne that Stuart fought. He corrects this statement in Letters of Eminent Persons to David Hume, p. 110. Neither he nor Lord Campbell gives any reference. Stuart was member for Lanarkshire in the Parliament elected in Nov. 1774. Parl. Hist. xviii. 29. In 1779 he and Gibbon became colleagues as Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. Ib. 7, 29.

[10]Note 10. It was not, says Burke, till the year 1767 that the affairs of the East India Company were first introduced into Parliament. Ann. Reg. 1773, i. 63. This introduction was regarded as a startling innovation. ‘The novelty of an English minister of state venturing to interfere, as an officer of the Crown, in a matter of private property excited in the highest degree the attention of all sorts of people.’ Ib. 1767, i. 43. By an annual payment by the Company to the Government of £400,000 a year a respite was purchased from state interference. Ib. i. 431 . In 1769, in the alarm caused by the news of Hyder Ali's successes in war, India stock had fallen above 60 per cent. in a few days. The Directors, ‘to put a stop to the abuses and mismanagements which had so much disgraced the Company's government in India,’ appointed three men ‘who should be invested with extraordinary powers, and sent to India under the character of Supervisors, with full authority to examine into and rectify the concerns of every department, and a full power of control over all their other servants in India.’ Ann. Reg. 1769, i. 53. The ship in which they sailed was never heard of. ‘The fate of these gentlemen,’ wrote Burke, ‘was undoubtedly one of the greatest misfortunes that could have befallen the Company.’ Ib. 1773, i. 66. It was brought to the brink of bankruptcy and ruin, and could not keep up its payment to the government. In their alarm at the appointment of the Parliamentary Committee the Directors resolved to send out new Supervisors. The resolution came too late. In Dec. 1772 a bill was rapidly carried through Parliament restraining the Company for six months from sending out any such Commission of Supervision. Ib. p. 73, and Parl. Hist. xvii. 651. Before the time had run out the Regulating Act was carried through both Houses, and Warren Hastings was appointed first Governor-General. ‘Thus,’ writes Burke, ‘this memorable revolution was accomplished. From that time the Company is to be considered as wholly in the hands of the ministers of the Crown.’ Ann. Reg. 1773, i. 105. Andrew Stuart was not named one of the four Councillors who were to assist the Governor-General. But among them was one who was a still bitterer enemy of Lord Mansfield—Philip Francis, the author of the Letters of Junius.

[11]Note 11. The Rev. Dr. Adam Ferguson, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh. He had been tutor to the family of Lord Bute, and so had influence at Court. Burton's Hume, ii. 34, 45. Hume wrote to Adam Smith on Nov. 23 of this year:—‘Ferguson has returned, fat and fair, and in good humour, notwithstanding his disappointment, which I am glad of.’ Ib. p. 461. It was at his house that Scott, a lad of fifteen, saw Burns. Lockhart's Life of Scott, ed. 1839, i. 185. Scott in his review of John Home's Works records the following anecdote of him:—’dr. Adam Ferguson went as chaplain to the Black Watch or 42d Highland Regiment, when that corps was first sent to the Continent. As the regiment advanced to the Battle of Fontenoy, the commanding officer, Sir Robert Monro, was astonished to see the chaplain at the head of the column, with a broadsword drawn in his hand. He desired him to go to the rear with the surgeons, a proposal which Adam Ferguson spurned. Sir Robert at length told him that his commission did not entitle him to be present in the post which he had assumed. “D—n my commission,” said the warlike chaplain, throwing it towards his Colonel. It may easily be supposed that the matter was only remembered as a good jest; but the future historian of Rome shared the honours and dangers of that dreadful day, where, according to the account of the French themselves, “the Highland furies rushed in upon them with more violence than ever did a sea driven by a tempest.”’ Quarterly Review, lxxi. 196.

Lord Cockburn in his Memorials, p. 49, describes him in his old age as ‘a spectacle well worth beholding. His hair was silky and white; his eyes animated and light-blue; his cheeks sprinkled with broken red like autumnal apples, but fresh and healthy; his lips thin and the under one curled.’ In middle age he had had a severe paralytic attack, which so reduced his animal vitality that he always wore a good deal of fur. ‘His gait and air were noble; his gesture slow; his look full of dignity and composed fire. He looked like a philosopher from Lapland. His palsy ought to have killed him in his fiftieth year; but rigid care enabled him to live uncrippled, either in body or mind, nearly fifty years more. Wine and animal food besought his appetite in vain; but huge messes of milk and vegetables disappeared before him, always in the never failing cloth and fur.... He always locked the door of his study when he left it, and took the key in his pocket; and no housemaid got in till the accumulation of dust and rubbish made it impossible to put the evil day off any longer; and then woe on the family. He shook hands with us boys one day in summer 1793, on setting off in a strange sort of carriage, and with no companion except his servant James, to visit Italy for a new edition of his history. He was then about seventy-two, and had to pass through a good deal of war; but returned in about a year younger than ever.’ He was born in 1724 and died in 1816.

[12]Note 12. Johnson would certainly have charged Hume with joining in what he calls ‘the Scotch conspiracy in national falsehood’ (Boswell's Johnson, ii. 297); and with sharing in that ‘national combination, so invidious that their friends cannot defend it,’ which is one of the chief means ‘which enables them to find, or to make their way to employment, riches, and distinction’ (Works, ix. 158). No man was better than Hume at magnifying the merits of a countryman. As Ferguson was unsurpassed in the whole world in worth, so ‘Wilkie [the author of the Epigoniad] was to be the Homer, Blacklock the Pindar, and Home the Shakespeare or something still greater of his country.’ Burton's Hume, ii. 32.

[1]According to Horace Walpole (Memoirs of the Reign of George II, ed. 1822, ii. 276), Pitt, in a debate on the army estimates on Dec. 14, 1757, had described Clive as ‘that man, not born for a desk—that heaven-born general.’

[1]The pagination of the Annual Register is so clumsy that it is not always easy either to give or to find a reference. In the number from which I am quoting page 43 is found three times. My first reference is to the first page 43, my second to the second, which is separated from it by only eight pages and is distinguished by an asterisk.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for Letters of David Hume to William Strahan

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

LETTER LIX.: Learned Printers: Princess Dowager: George III and the East India Company. - David Hume, Letters of David Hume to William Strahan [1756]

Edition used:

About Liberty Fund: