This declaration of Defoe, which claims to him the pamphlet fastened on the "ingenious and judicious Joseph Addison, Esq.," and repudiates that "judged to be written by that prostituted fool of the last ministry, D—— D— F—," will amuse your readers, as it seems to form an admirable commentary on the text—
"And every blockhead knows me by my style."
We can fully accept his disclaimer of The Triennial Act Impartially Stated. It is, however, singular enough that the style of the Arguments about the Alteration of Triennial Elections of Parliament, without attaching too much importance to that criterion, is not the style of Defoe; and the Bill of Commerce with France is denounced in it in such terms as "that destructive bill," "that fatal bill," as one can scarcely suppose, without entertaining a meaner opinion of him than I feel assured he deserves, he could or would, under any circumstances, have made use of. To carry this Bill of Commerce he exerted all his great powers as a writer, and supported it in the Review and the Mercator, in the Essay on the Treaty of Commerce with France (1713, 8vo.), and in two other tracts, both of which were unknown to Chalmers and Wilson, and have never been noticed or included in the list of his works, namely, Some Thoughts upon the Subject of Commerce with France: by the Author of the Review (Baker, 1713, 8vo.), and A general History of Trade, in which an Attempt is made to state and moderate the present Disputes about settling a Commerce between Great Britain and France for the Month of September (Baker, 1713); being the fourth Number of the History of Trade, which Wilson says "extended only to two Numbers" (vol. iii. p. 339.). In the Appeal to Honour and Justice, published only the year before (1715), he supports the same cause with all his strength. He vindicates the part he had taken, and says—
"This was my opinion, and is so still; and I would venture to maintain it against any man upon a public stage, before a jury of fifty merchants, and venture my life upon the cause, if I were assured of fair play in the dispute."—Works, edit. 1841, vol. xx. p. 43.
His opinion on the policy of the bill, as appears by all his subsequent commercial works, never changed: and that he could so speak of it in this pamphlet (Arguments about the Alteration, &c.), supposing it to be his, seems almost incredible. I feel convinced that no other similar instance can be found, during the whole of his career, in which he can be shown to express himself with such a total disregard of his avowed opinions and his honest convictions. Were it certain that he had done so, then the character which the Tolands, Oldmixons, and Boyers have given of him, as ready to take up any cause for hire, and as the prostituted agent of a party, and which I believe to be a base slander, would indeed be well deserved. But it will be asked how, after so apparently distinct and explicit an avowal, can it be doubted that he was the author of the pamphlet in question? I can only account for it on the supposition that Defoe, in writing from recollection of what Boyer had stated, in the following year, confounded the pamphlet praised with one of the pamphlets noticed. It appears to me that one of them, the full title of which is Some Considerations on a Law for Triennial Parliaments, with an enquiry, 1. Whether there may not be a time when it is necessary to suspend the execution even of such Laws as are most essential to the Liberties of the People? 2. Whether this is such a time or no? (London, printed for J. Baker and T. Warner, at the Black Boy, in Paternoster Row, 1716, pp. 40.), and which is noticed in Boyer's list, has infinitely more both of Defoe's style and manner of treating a subject than the other pamphlet. I entertain no doubt that it was written by him, though it has never hitherto been attributed to him; and it is far from being unlikely that his recollection may have deceived him and that he may have thought that Boyer's praise applied to this pamphlet, written on the same side, and not to the other. It
will be observed that Defoe does not give the title of the pamphlet, and that he does not notice that it was attributed by Boyer to Addison; which he would scarcely have omitted doing if he had written his letter with Boyer's words before him, in which also the term "inconsistency" is not used. Such is my solution of the difficulty, which unexplained would throw a new, and certainly a very unfavourable light on Defoe's character as a pamphleteer and politician.
James Crossley.
ARTHUR O'CONNOR.
From the French recent papers we learn that Arthur O'Connor, one of the prominent actors in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, has just closed his prolonged life at his residence, the Château de Bignon, near Nemours (Seine et Marne) in France. When, in 1834, by permission of the government of Lord Grey, he and his accomplished wife were in this city (Cork), with the view of disposing of his inherited and not confiscated property, in order to invest the produce in France, I was almost in daily intercourse with them; and, from my recollection of the lady's father, the Marquis de Condorcet, a distinguished mathematician, but better known as the biographer and ardent propagator of Voltaire's infidel principles, as well as the zealous partisan of the Revolution, though finally its victim, I was always a welcome visitor. O'Connor, whom Bonaparte had raised to the rank of General of Division, equivalent to that of General in full in our service, being next to the degree of Marshal, told me that the disunion and personal altercations of the Irish Legion engaged in the service of the then republican France had deservedly and utterly estranged and disgusted the French successive rulers, particularly Napoleon, in whose triumphs they consequently were not allowed to participate as a national body. The rancorous duel between two officers, McSweeny and Corbet, both from Cork, had made a deep impression on the great soldier, and the Legion was disbanded. Having inquired from O'Connor whether he did not intend to publish the events of his variegated life, he told me that he was preparing the narrative; but, on mentioning to his wife that he had made this acknowledgment, she immediately called on me with an earnest request that I would dissuade him from doing so. She did not explain her motive, and I only promised to avoid the future renewal of the subject in our conversations. As yet, whatever preparations he may have made, the press has not been resorted to; though, if in existence, as may be presumed, the work, or its materials, will not, most probably, be suffered to remain in closed and mysterious secrecy. The Memoirs, for so he entitled it, cannot fail to be most interesting; for he was a man of truth, and incapable of misrepresentation, though, of course, liable to misconception, in his recital of events; nor can it be denied, that a history, in any degree worthy of the theme—that is, of the Irish Rebellion, is still unpublished.[[1]] Whatever objection may have prevented the publication during his life, none, I should suppose and hope, can now be urged after his death, which, singularly enough, in an article devoted to him in the Biographie Universelle, I find as having occurred so long since as 1830. His son, too, is there represented as the husband of his own mother! the writer, with other confusions of facts, having mistaken Arthur for his elder brother, Roger O'Connor, father of the present eccentric Feargus, M.P. It is thus, too, that the great vocalist Braham is in the same voluminous repository stated to have died of the cholera in August, 1830, though, several years subsequently, I saw him in hale flesh and blood; but the compilation, valuable, it must be admitted, in French biography, teems with ludicrous blunders on English lives, which, in the new edition now in state of preparation, will, I hope, be corrected. Even the articles of Newton, though by Biot, and of Shakspeare and Byron by Villemain, are not much to their credit, particularly the latter, in which the national prejudices prominently emerge.