« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the American war displayed all these features”; and there are two pages more of the same kind of comment.93
Immediately following the description of North, there is a paragraph devoted to the other ministers, which was obviously written at the same time; the tone is very bitter, and Elliot and Dyson are mentioned as having died during the American war. The paragraph at page 57 belongs to the same period, I think, for Walpole mentions with regret that although the "Ministers were teazed within, and the King from without, Lord Chatham was always baffled in the Lords, Dowdeswell, Burke, and Grenville in the Commons; nor could Wilkes in the City keep up more than an ineffectual flame.” In the letters, on the contrary, Walpole records with pleasure that the court is successful in spite of the efforts of Chatham in the Lords, of the Opposition in the Commons, and of Wilkes in the City:94 From this point the Memoirs return to the manner of 1771, which prevails until page 70, where the Luttrell affair is summed up as “a speaking lesson to Princes and Ministers not to stretch the strings of prerogative! The whole reign of George the Third was a standing sermon of the same kind; and the mortifications I have been recounting were but slight bruises compared to the wounds he afterwards received."95
At page 83 we come to the paragraph to which is appended the note already quoted : “ This paragraph, from the words and was disabled, was added in July 1784." From the words indicated to the end of the paragraph is a matter of only nine lines. But it is clear that not only these nine lines but the two following paragraphs to the top of page 86 were added at the same time. At the point where Walpole has appended the note quoted above the text reads as follows: “The truth of these observations will appear from some remarks that I think it necessary to make on a pamphlet which made much noise at the time of which I am writing, and the effects of which, though the treatise may be forgotten, are felt at this day, that essay having operated considerably towards dividing ... the Opposition, which afterwards . . . was reduced to the shadow of resistance, and was disabled ", etc. The rest of the paragraph and the two following are devoted to a diatribe on the danger from the prerogative, the insidious designs of the king, and the lessons of the American war. It is only at page 85 that we finally learn the title of the pamphlet about which he wishes to make some remarks. The transition comes in the middle of a paragraph, and is abrupt enough to justify quot
03 Cf. Letters, XII. 245, 420. ** Ibid., VII. 349. us Cf. this with ibid., VII. 345.
ing. “He [the author] has written prodigiously too much, if no man shall be the wiser for his writings. He laments not his pains, nor shall deprecate censure if a single person becomes a real patriot, or a better citizen from perusing this work-of which he himself is heartily tired. Mr. Edmund Burke had published, on the 23rd of April, a long and laborious pamphlet, called Thoughts on the Present Discontents", etc.96
A final example from the fourth volume will suffice. At the top of page 157, Walpole says: “ Still was the surprise of mankind extreme, when, on the 16th, it was known that Lord Weymouth had resigned the Seals—a mysterious conduct, increased by his own obstinate silence", etc. In the next few lines, Walpole explains that the resignation probably did not mean that Weymouth would go into opposition, for a lucrative place was at once granted to his brother; “the weak measures of the Court having reduced them to be afraid of a man who had quitted them only from fear". Having said that the resignation was “mysterious”, Walpole now says that it was
The whole paragraph on page 83, the one to which Walpole has appended the note quoted above, shows some indications of having been written partly in 1771-1772, partly in 1775, and partly in 1784. The paragraph begins on page 82, thus : Those vague and unconcerted attacks wore out the spirit of redress, instead of keeping up its zeal. The several factions hated each other more than they did their common enemies, and most of the leaders of Opposition had, in their time, contributed to the grievances of which they now complained. It must, I think, appear evident, from the scope of the reign, that the Princess Dowager and Lord Bute had assumed the reins with a fixed intention of raising the prerogative”, etc. There seems little connection between the last sentence and the one preceding. The theme of the princess and Bute and the prerogative is elaborated for a page, until, in the middle of page 83, we come to the sentence already quoted : “ The truth of these observations ", etc. Now, the "remarks " which Walpole finally (p. 86) makes on Burke's pamphlet do not confirm the “observations" just made on the princess, Bute, and the prerogative, but go to show that the real evils of which Burke complained—the " Discontents "had their origin in the factional struggles of the reign of George II.; the “ remarks " which Walpole makes, that is, confirm the truth of the first two sentences of the paragraph, that “most of the leaders of Opposition had, in their time, contributed to the grievances of which they now complained.” Further, Walpole says that though the pamphlet in question may be forgotten, its effects
“ felt at this day”. He would hardly have said that, if writing in, 17711772, for the pamphlet was published in 1770. If, however, Walpole was writing in 1775, the expression would be perfectly natural. I think it very likely that the original draft ran as follows. "... and most of the leaders of Opposition had, in their time, contributed to the grievances of which they now complained. [Insertion of 1784 to middle of page 83.) The truth of these observations will appear from some remarks that I think it necessary to make on a pamphlet which made much noise at the time of which I am writing, and the effects of which [insertion of clause 1775] operated considerably towards dividing, and consequently weakening the Opposition. [Clause to "resistance" inserted, 1775.] [Two pages inserted in 1784.) Mr. Edmund Burke had published, on the 23rd of April”, etc.
due to fear. The next sentence is: “Such was the complexion of the King's whole conduct”, and the rest of the paragraph is devoted to explaining that such conduct ended in the loss of the American colonies. The next paragraph begins: "The secret motives of Lord Weymouth's resignation were these”; and the paragraph is devoted to explaining what he has just said was “mysterious". The expla
” nation given is that Weymouth, thinking that the king favored war with Spain, had gone in for it strongly, and, supported by Wood, had thrown “every damp on the negotiation "; but when North and the Scots, fearing the return of Chatham in case of war, brought the king back to a peace policy, Weymouth, “who would not have hesitated to change his language had he thought peace could be effected, chose rather to waive his ambition than his security”, and resigned. Thus Walpole understands perfectly the conduct of Weymouth and knows perfectly that Wood encouraged him in favoring war. From this point, five pages follow, in which Walpole describes Weymouth at length in order that it may be understood hereafter how such a man could be the “hinge on which so important a crisis turned ”. This digression ends at page 163 with a reference to the loss of “our colonies in America, and the empire of the ocean everywhere”. The very next paragraph begins: "I return to Lord Weymouth's resignation.” Why return to it, when it had been so fully discussed? For the purpose, apparently, of explaining it once more, or rather of offering a few inconclusive conjectures on the subject. Here we learn that Weymouth, “Lord Chatham's friends asserted, had advised making reprisals on Spain: whether authorized or prompted by Wood, and whether to drive the resigner into opposition, I know not. Certain it is, that he had advised recalling Mr.
I Harris, our Minister, from Madrid ", etc. Thus the resignation has again become the “mysterious" affair that Walpole asserted it to be on page 157 ; Weymouth's attitude on the Spanish war rests on the assertion of Chatham's friends; and Wood's part in the matter is not known. Yet between page 157 and page 163 Walpole has explained all these points with great precision. If we cut out everything from the words “nor should resign with him”, on page 157, to the words " Lord Chatham's friends asserted", on page 163, and insert after the word “asserted” the words “ that he had ”, the continuity and consistency of the whole is perfect.
These are not the only passages in the fourth volume that show evidence of having been inserted in 1784; but they are the most important ones, and the only ones, perhaps, with respect to which the evidence is altogether convincing. 9
Cf., for example, Memoirs, IV. 1, with Letters, VII. 345.
It has now been shown that the Memoirs were revised as late as 1784, and that in this revision a considerable amount of new material was inserted in the fourth volume; a more difficult question now presents itself-was the revision of 1784 confined to the fourth volume? To what extent the first three volumes were revised in 1784, and the general significance of the revision as a whole, will be considered in the second part of this article.
THE BRITISH ATTITUDE TOWARD THE OREGON
The Oregon question, which agitated the minds of our people for nearly a generation, bore, like most international problems, a double set of characteristics, the one theoretical, the other practical. Theoretically, it was a question which of two nations, the United States or Great Britain, would succeed in establishing its sovereignty over the region west of the Rocky Mountains, stretching from California in the south to Alaska in the north, or from the parallel of forty-two degrees to the line of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes. Practically, the problem was to determine in what manner and on what principles the territory should be shared by the two claimant states in common parlance, a boundary question.
At the time when the issue was first joined, 1815, each of the two nations had an honestly acquired interest in that country based on historical developments of no slight importance. Great Britain entered first, through the door of maritime exploration and the deepsea fur-trade, both of which activities were inaugurated, so far as the Northwest Coast is concerned, by Captain James Cook in his celebrated Third Voyage. Cook's leading object was to discover a passage from the Pacific to the Atlantic; this—had it proved attainable—would have crowned the policy, already well developed, of making the Pacific, with its teeming islands, numerous primitive peoples, and the circumjacent nations of the Orient, a trade preserve of Great Britain. It would probably have determined the political destiny of the Northwest Coast. In the space of fifteen years, dating from Cook's voyage, British navigators were ready to give the world a fairly complete map of that coast, the result in part of surveys ordered by the government and in part of more or less systematic observations made in the course of trade. During the same inter
1 See Cook's Voyage, 1776–1780 (London, 1784).
? See on the evolution of Britain's policy of exploring the Pacific, the present author's paper entitled “ The Acquisition of Oregon, Part 1., Exploration and Discovery”, in the Bulletin of the University of Oregon, new series, vol. VI., no. 3, December, 1908.
* See Vancouver's map (Voyages, London, 1799) which includes results partly published previously in the Voyages of Por ck, Dixon, and Meares. Vancouver had been directed to the mouth of the Columbia by Gray, an American trader who entered the river May 11, 1792; Spanish navigators co-operated with him in the mapping of the Puget Sound region.