I To the EDITOR of the EUROPEAN MAGAZINE. SIR, SEND for infertion in your Magazine a Ballad written by Lord Chefterfield, which is not inferted in his Works, and which I do not recollect ever to have feen in print *. I found it, with many other pieces, fome of which you will receive hereafter in a volume of manufcript Poems written by different hands, chiefly at an early period in this century. The tranfaétion which gave occafion to this jeu d'efprit at the time made much noife. I fhall therefore, firft of all, ftate the circumftances attending it, in order that the allufions may be more clearly understood. In the year 1717 a difference arofe between George I. and his fon, afterwards George II. then Prince of Wales, which took its origin in the following manner. On the 3d of November the Princess of Wales was delivered of a Prince at St. James's, and the King two days after paid her a vifit, and returned to Hampton Court. The young Prince was baptized the 28th of the fame month, and died not long after. This baptifm occafioned the difference between the father and fon. It appears the Prince had defigned the Duke of York, Bishop of Oinabrug, the King's brother, to be one of the Godfathers, and had reafon to believe the King was fatisfied with his choice. But when the ceremony came to be performed, the Duke of Newcastle food Godfather with the King, not as proxy for, or reprefenting the Duke of York, but for himfelf, and in his own name and perfon. This the Prince took ill of the Duke, not as he acted in obedience to his Majefty's command, but as if the Duke had done, or at least seemed officious to do, fomething which he was not commanded. This proceeding fenfibly touched the Prince, and raifed his indignation to that degree, that he could not help fhewing it; but as foon as the ceremony was over, fpoke fome warm words to the Duke, expreffing his refentment at what he had done. Upon report of thefe words to the King, his Majefty thought fit to give a fudden mark of his displeasure by fending his commands to the Prince to keep his own apartment till his pleasure was farther known: to which he immediately fubmitted. Soon after this his Majesty's farther pleasure was fignified to the Prince, that he fhould leave St. James's accordingly he quitted the Palace, the Princefs going along with him, and retired to the houfe of the Earl of Grantham in Albemarle-ftreet; but the children by the King's order remained at St. James's. In a fhort time his Majesty's pleasure was figuified to all the Peers and Peereffes of Great Britain and Ireland, and to all Privy Councillors and their wives, that all perfons who fhould go to fee the Prince and Princess of Wales fhould forbear coming into his Majefty's prefence. Befides, fuch as had employments under the King and Prince both, were obliged to quit the fervice of one of them. After this difference had taken place fome time, there was printed in the AmfterdainGazette a Letter in French, faid to be written by one of the Secre taries of State to the Foreign Ministers. dated at Whitehall, December 14. 1717, giving an account of the whole tranfaction; of which the Author of THE CRITIC, a weekly Paper of the time, published the following transla tion: SIR, HIS Majefty having been informed that feveral reports, for the moft part ill-grounded, are spread abroad concerning what has lately paffed in the Royal Family, he has ordered me to fend you the inclofed account of it. As foon as the young Prince was born, the King caufed himself to be informed of what was wont to be ob ferved in the like cafes in this kingdom, in regard to the ceremony of baptifm: and having found by the records that when it was a boy, and the King was godfather, it was the cuftom for him to nominate for fecond godfather one of the principal Lords of his Court, who for the most part was the Lord Chamberlain, he named for this func In the year 1777 fix or seven stanzas from memory, very imperfect and erroneous, were printed in The Gentleman's Magazine by a person who regretted his inability to ob tan a complete copy. Editor. tion tion the Duke of Newcastle, who now bears that charge; naming, at the fame time, for godmother the Duchefs of St. Alban's, First Lady of Honour to the Princeis. Neverthelefs His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales conceived fuch a diflike at this, that on Thursday laft, after the folemnity of the baptifm was over, finding himself no longer mafter of his temper, he drew near to the Duke of Newcattle and gave him very reproachful words, upon the fuppofition that he had folicited that honour in fpite of him. The King was full in the chamber, but not ncar enough to hear what the Prince faid to the Duke. This last thinking himself obliged to inform the King of it, and the Prince having confeffed the matter to the Dukes of Kingston, Kent, and Roxburgh (whom his Majesty fent to him the next day upon this occafion), his Majesty ordered him by a fecond meffage not to go out of his own apartment till farther order. On Saturday the Prince wrote a letter to the King, and the next day (Sunday) another. But his Majefty not finding them fatisfactory, and having bfides other reafons of discontent at feveral freps the Prince had taken, he caused him to be told vefterday in the after. noon, by the Vice-Chamberlain Mr. Cooke, that he thould be gone from the Palace of St. James's; and to the Princess, that the might continue in the Palace as long as the thought conve nient; but that as for the Princeffes her daughters and the young Prince, the King would have them remain with him in the Palace, and that the Princefs fhould be permitted to see them as eften as the defired it. However, the Princefs, being unwilling to leave the Prince her husband, went with him to the houfe of the Earl of Grantham, her Lord Chamberlain, where their Royal Highneffes lay laft night. This breach in the Royal Family continued until April 1720, when a reconciliation took place through the interference of the Duke of Devonshire and Sir Robert Walpole. But it is time to produce Lord Chefterfield's Ballad, to which a few explanatory notes are added. A NEW BALLAD. TO THE TUNE OF CHEVY-CHACE. Go profper long our noble King, His Turks and Germans all, To name a child, with might and main, We all may rue the child was born, Who chriftined was that day. His furdy fire, the Prince of Wales, His heart full fore should ache. But on a day ftrait to the Court This Duke came with a ftaff: E'en in his father's hall; Thou rogue and eke rascal. The Duke ran ftraitway to the King, And then the King fent three Dukes † more Then Roxburgh faid, Great Sir, indeed King George the First had an attendant about his perfon named Lewis Maximilian Mahomet, born a Muffulman, at Gauron in the Morca, where his father was Governor. He was taken at the tiege of Buda, where the King fignalized himself with great bravery. He attached himself to his new mafter, was chriften, and continued the rest of his life at Court in great favour with the King. He died at Kensington, November 1,1726, and was buried in the Savoy. To him Pope alludes in the following lines in The Characters of Womert From Peer or Bishop 'tis no eafy thing To draw the man who loves his God and Kanga Allow I copy (or my draught would ful) From honeft Mah'inet or plain pation rials + The Duke: of kingfion, Kent, and Rexburgh By By G-thou lyeft; I know thy heart And then he added words of wrath : We faw the Prince, quoth Roxburgh-Bon ! The King then took his grey-goofe quill, Take hence yourself, and eke your spouse, Your maidens and your men, Thefe heavy tidings being told, Each fnatch'd up fomething useful; The Artillery Commiffion† ; Up leap'd Le Pelt and frisk'd away As tho the ran on wheels, But Bellenden I needs must praise Who, as down ftairs the jumps Sung "O'er the Hills and far away," Defpifing doleful dumps. Then up the street they took their way, And knock'd up good Lord Grantham ; Higgledee-piggledee they lay, And all went rantum-fcantum, Now Sire and Son had play'd their part, What could befall befide ? Why the poor babe took this to heart, Kick'd up its heels and died! ་ God grant the King may profit reap For your next Magazine, if you wili referve me a place, I will tranf mit another unpublished Ballad from the fame Collection, on the fame fubjet, which has many marks of the fame Author. I am, &c.. C. D. On the 23d of March 1714, the Artillery Company of the City of London veted an Address to the King, and defired him to appoint them a Captain-Ceneral; in confequence of which, as a mark of his particular regard, he named the Prince of Wales. 1 Afterwards Lady Hervev. Afterwards Lady Pembroke. Mifs Bellenden, married to Central Campbell, afterwards Duke of Argyle. [FOMR [FROM MR. MADISON TO THE VICE-PRESIDENT.] Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1795. DEAR SIR, I HAVE been induced to this deJay in acknowledging your letter of the 23d ult. enclofing one to you from Mr. Belknap, by a defire to obtain from my memory all the information it might ever have poffeffed in relation to the error in Dr. Kippis's Life of Captain Cook. I was not a Member of Congrefs until March 1780. It is probable, therefore, that if the directions to American Commanders, in favour of Captain Cook, iffued, as is ftated, in March 1779, they must have been tranfmitted to that body, and undergone its confideration, before I could have been prefent. After 1 became a Member, nothing was ever done on the fubject, as far as my memory can inform me. I do not even recollect that the fubje&t ever fell incidentally under any public difcuffion. I have, however, a pretty ftrong impreffion, that it occafionally entered into the converfation of the Members, as it often did into that of intelligent citizens out of doors; and that I never heard a fenti. ment uttered which did not applaud the magnanimity of the idea, which confidered Captain Cook's expedition as confecrated to the general good of mankind, and confequently not included in the hoftilities between particular nations. lin, Minifter from America to France in the year 1779, to the American eruizers, to treat Captain Cook, on his expected return from a voyage of dif coveries, as a friend, and not an enemy; affuring them, that in fo doing they would obtain the approbation of Congrefs; but that the Doctor was mistaken, for that Affembly, at least the greater part of them, inftantly reverfed the order of Dr. Franklin, and directed, that a fpecial order should be taken to feize Captain Cook, if an opportunity for doing it occurred. You requeft me to give you a certificate refpecting the matter, and to exprefs the years when I was in Congrefs. I was a Member from the first fitting of Congrefs, in the year 1774, until the Spring of the year 1781. It was my conftant practice, once in twelve or fifteen months, to make a hort vifit to my conftituents. In the year 1779 1 was detained in Boston a much longer time than ufual by a fit of ficknefs; in which time I conftantly received from Mr. Lovell and my other colleagues, information of the most material tranfactions' of Congrefs. I do now declare to you, that I do not recollect, either while I was prefent in Congrefs, or from any of my col leagues while I was abfent, that the orders he (Dr. Franklin) had given to the American cruizers, were inftantly or ever reverfed, or that it was directed by Congrefs, that a special order fhould be taken to feize Captain Cook, if an opportunity for doing it occurred. It appears to me that Dr. Kippis muft have been misinformed. I am, with refpect, Your friend and humble fervant, Rev. Dr. Belknap. [FROM JAMES LOVELL, ESQ.] Boflon, March 28, 1795. SIR, HAVING been conftantly upon duty, as a Member of Congress, from the beginning of the year 1777 to the beginning of 1782, and for the most part of that time one of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, and in fome of the years upon a Committee for publishing the Journals, and having also been individually in the habit of correfponding with Dr. Franklin during the whole period, I feel no hesitation in declaring declaring the reprefentation made by Dr. Kippis, in your extract before me, to be falfe, and though perhaps not malicious, yet most difreputably inadvertent in him, as the Author of Biographia Britannica. Dr. Franklin was fo fure of the liberality of the Government under which he was employed, that I doubt whether he thought it necedary even to fend a copy of his orders refpecting Captain Cook, for the inspection of Congrefs. I am, Sir, With much esteem, Your humble fervant, Rev. Dr. Belknap. [FROM ELBRIDGE GERRY, ESQ] Cambridge, April 3, 1795. SIR, IN compliance with the request of the Prefident of the Maffachusetts Hiftorical Society, permit me to addrefs you on the fubject of an extract which he has tranfmitted to me from the Biographia Britannica of Dr. Kippis, who therein afferts, that "Dr. Franklin, acting as Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States in the year 1779, recommended to American cruizers, if they fhould meet Captain Cook on a return from a voyage of difcoveries, to treat him as a friend and not as an enemy that the Doctor was not fupported by his masters in this noble act of humanity, of love to feience, and of liberal policy; but that the orders he had given were inftantly revoked; and it was directed by Congrefs, that special order should be taken to feize Captain Cook, if an opportutunity for doing it occurred." If fuch a measure had been adopted by Congrefs, it probably would have Occurred to me, as I was a Member of that Body, and conftantly attended it, from September 1776 to March 1789 but I have no recollection of fuch an act, or any measure fimilar to it. Ad. mitting, however, it had escaped my memory, it would certainly have appeared either on the Public or Private Journals of Congrefs, and I have the whole of the former and a copy of the latter to the period laft-mentioned, but cannot find in either of them any fuch order as is mentioned by Dr. Kip pis, or any entry which wears the femblance of it. VOL. XXVIII. SEPT. 1795. That Congress, therefore, have neither paffed nor fanctioned fuch an order, I conceive is demonstrable; and if this unmerited afperfion is productive of difgrace, on whom does it devolve unlefs on the author? If, then, to justify his conduct in this inftance, the Doctor fhould endeavour to fhew that he has been gruffy impofed on in point of fact, the Public will determine whether this is a fufficient apology for his hafty and unjuft reproach of the Government of a nation; or whether, as a profefled friend to liberality and candour, he ought not to have prefumed that Congrefs were incapable of fuch an illiberal act, until he poffeffed inconteftible evidence to the contrary. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your friend and very humble fervant, E. GERRY. To the Rev. Dr. Bel- I DID not till yesterday receive your Letter of the 4th of February, with the enclofed Letter to you from Dr. Belknap, dated Jan. 7, &c. Though on reading thefe remarks I could not befitate a moment in contradicting them, becaufe Congrefs never did exprefs a difapprobation of the directions iffued by Dr. Franklin, nor did they ever direct that efpecial care fhould be taken to feize Captain Cook, if an opportunity of doing it occurred; yet I thought it might not be improper to paufe, and try to find from what fource this mifreprefentation Sprung. It is true that in the year following, viz. on the 2d of May 1780, Congress pafied a new form of a Commiflion for private veffels of war, and new inftructions to the Commanders in which the thips or voffels with their cargoes, belonging to the inhabitants of Bermuda, and other veffels bringing pertons with an intent to fettle and refide in the United States, are exprefly exempted from Y capture; |