4

5

To these mournful narratives I am about to add the Life of Richard Savage, a man whose writings entitle him to an eminent rank in the classes of learning, and whose misfortunes claim a degree of compassion not always due to the unhappy, as they were often the consequences of the crimes of others rather than his own.

In the year 1697 Anne Countess of Macclesfield, having lived for some time upon very uneasy terms with her husband', thought a public confession of adultery the most obvious and expeditious method of obtaining her liberty, and therefore declared that the child, with which she was then great, was begotten by the Earl Rivers. This, as may be imagined, made her husband no less desirous of a separation than herself, and he prosecuted his design in the most effectual manner; for he applied not to the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce, but to the parliament for an act, by which his marriage might be dissolved, the nuptial contract totally annulled, and the children of his wife illegitimated3. This act, after the usual deliberation, he obtained, though without the approbation of some, who considered marriage as an affair only cognizable by ecclesiastical judges*;

'See Appendix GG. 2 See Appendix HH.

3 The want of male issue [to the Earl of Macclesfield] was the occasion of engaging two eminent Peers, Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, in a duel in which they had the misfortune to kill each other.' Life of Savage, 1727, P. 4.

[This duel was fought in Hyde Park on Nov. 15, 1712. Scott's Swift, iii. 61. The two peers had married descendants of the first Earl of Macclesfield. In 1702, through the failure of the Earl's male heirs, his descendants in the female line became co-heirs. There were complicated disputes concerning Macclesfield real estate. Cokayne's Complete Peerage. An affront given by Mohun to Hamilton at a meeting concerning the lawsuit was alleged to have been the immediate cause of the duel.]

the

'This year was made remarkable by the dissolution of a marriage solemnized in the face of the church.' SALMON'S Review of Hist. of Eng. 1724, ii. 89.

The following protest is registered in the books of the House of Lords: 'Dissentient.

'Because we conceive that this is the first bill of that nature that hath passed, where there was not a divorce first obtained in the Spiritual Court; which we look upon as an ill precedent, and may be of dangerous consequence in the future.

'HALIFAX. ROCHESTER.' NOTE BY JOHNSON. 'The canon law, which the common law follows in this case, deems so highly and with such mysterious reverence of the nuptial tie, that it will not allow it to be unloosed for any cause whatsoever that arises after the union is made.... With us in England adultery is only a cause of separation from bed and board... However, divorces a vinculo matrimonii, for adultery, have of late years been frequently granted by act of parliament.' BLACKSTONE, Com. i. 441.

In 1694 the Duke of Norfolk had moved for a similar Act. 'All the bishops who had been made during

and on March 3d1 was separated from his wife, whose fortune, which was very great, was repaid her2, and who having, as well as her husband, the liberty of making another choice, was in a short time married to Colonel Brett 3.

While the Earl of Macclesfield was prosecuting this affair his 6 wife was, on the 10th of January, 1697-8 *, delivered of a son, and the Earl Rivers, by appearing to consider him as his own, left none any reason to doubt of the sincerity of her declaration; for he was his godfather, and gave him his own name, which was by his direction inserted in the register of St. Andrew's parish in Holborn 5, but unfortunately left him to the care of his mother, whom, as she was now set free from her husband, he probably imagined likely to treat with great tenderness the child that had contributed to so pleasing an event. It is not indeed easy to discover what motives could be found to overbalance that natural affection of a parent, or what interest could be promoted by neglect or cruelty. The dread of shame or of poverty, by which some wretches have been incited to abandon or to murder their children, cannot be supposed to have affected a woman who had proclaimed her crimes and solicited reproach, and on whom the clemency of the legislature had undeservedly bestowed a fortune, which would have been very little diminished by the expences which the care of her child could have brought upon her. It was therefore not likely that she would be wicked without temptation, that she would look upon her son from his birth with a kind of resentment and abhorrence, and, instead of supporting,

the present reign [William and Mary's] were of opinion that a second marriage in that case was lawful...; but all the bishops that had been made by the two former kings [Charles II and James II] were of another opinion.' BURNET, Hist. iii. 140.

Halifax was William Savile, Marquis of Halifax, and Rochester was Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester.

The Bill passed the Lords on March 3, 1697-8, the Commons on March 15, and obtained the Royal Assent on April 2. Lords' Journals, xi. 224, 256; Commons' Journals, xii. 160.

2 Luttrell recorded on March 3, 1697-8, that by a clause added to the bill of divorce' she shall have

assisting, and defending him, delight to see him struggling with misery; or that she would take every opportunity of aggravating his misfortunes and obstructing his resources, and with an implacable and restless cruelty continue her persecution from the first hour of his life to the last 1.

7 But whatever were her motives, no sooner was her son born than she discovered a resolution of disowning him; and in a very short time removed him from her sight by committing him to the care of a poor woman, whom she directed to educate him as her own, and injoined never to inform him of his true parents 2.

8

Such was the beginning of the life of Richard Savage. Born with a legal claim to honour and to affluence he was in two months illegitimated by the parliament 3 and disowned by his mother, doomed to poverty and obscurity, and launched upon the ocean of life only that he might be swallowed by its quicksands or dashed upon its rocks.

9 His mother could not indeed infect others with the same cruelty. As it was impossible to avoid the inquiries which the curiosity or tenderness of her relations made after her child, she was obliged to give some account of the measures that she had taken; and her mother, the Lady Mason*, whether in approbation of her design or to prevent more criminal contrivances,

At the trial it was proved that she had shown great fondness for her infant daughter, and when the child died had sent for a lock of its hair. A woman moreover deposed about her second confinement that she often heard the gentlewoman wish the child to be boy, and was mightily pleased when she heard it was a boy.' N. & Q. 2 S. vi. 363.

Savage, it is clear, had a great difficulty to contend with in Mrs. Brett's general character for kindness. He met it by admitting it. In The Plain Dealer, No. 28 (post, SAVAGE, 59), he is said to have given her a character for humanity with regard to the rest of the world.' In the same number he, or Aaron Hill in his name, writes of her :

'Yet has this sweet neglecter of my woes

The softest, tend'rest breast that pity knows.

'But oh! whatever cause has mov'd her hate,

Let me but sigh in silence at my fate.' Savage's Works, 1777, Preface, p. 22; Aaron Hill's Works, iv. 52.

2 Life of Savage, p. 5.

3 The child was born in Jan. 1696–7, and illegitimated in March 1697-8. Ante, SAVAGE, 6 n. 4; Appendix JJ.

Life of Savage, p. 6. She was the wife of Sir Richard Mason, of Sutton, Surrey. N. &Q. 2 S. vi. 361. Luttrell recorded on Feb. 20, 1680-1:-'The King hath... retrench't his family, Sir Stephen Fox and Sir Richard Mason maintaining it for 12,000l. per ann.' Brief Hist. Relation, 1857, i. 68.

engaged to transact with the nurse, to pay her for her care, and to superintend the education of the child.

In this charitable office she was assisted by his godmother 10 Mrs. Lloyd, who, while she lived, always looked upon him with that tenderness, which the barbarity of his mother made peculiarly necessary; but her death, which happened in his tenth year, was another of the misfortunes of his childhood: for though she kindly endeavoured to alleviate his loss by a legacy of three hundred pounds, yet, as he had none to prosecute his claim, to shelter him from oppression, or call in law to the assistance of justice, her will was eluded by the executors, and no part of the money was ever paid '.

He was, however, not yet wholly abandoned. The Lady 11 Mason still continued her care, and directed him to be placed at a small grammar-school near St. Alban's 2, where he was called by the name of his nurse, without the least intimation that he had a claim to any other.

Here he was initiated in literature 3, and passed through several 12 of the classes, with what rapidity or what applause cannot now be known. As he always spoke with respect of his master, it is probable that the mean rank, in which he then appeared, did not hinder his genius from being distinguished, or his industry from being rewarded; and if in so low a state he obtained distinction and rewards, it is not likely that they were gained but by genius and industry.

It is very reasonable to conjecture that his application was 13 equal to his abilities, because his improvement was more than

change of name by a second marriage. Moreover in the first fourteen years after the birth there is no will in either name 'on the register of the Archbishop's Court at Doctors' Commons.' Lady Mason lived till 1717, when her grandson, if he survived, was twenty. In the next paragraph we are told that 'she still continued her care.' 'Why,' asks Mr. Thomas, 'did he not prosecute his claim to the legacy?' N. & Q. 2 S. vi. 425-6. 2' He was sent to a little Grammar School at St. Alban's.' Life, p. 6.

In The Plain Dealer, No. 28, he is described as having been 'without the advantage of friends, fortune or education.'

14

proportioned to the opportunities which he enjoyed; nor can it be doubted that if his earliest productions had been preserved, like those of happier students, we might in some have found vigorous sallies of that sprightly humour which distinguishes The Author to be let1, and in others strong touches of that ardent imagination which painted the solemn scenes of The Wanderer 2.

While he was thus cultivating his genius, his father, the Earl Rivers, was seized with a distemper, which in a short time put an end to his life. He had frequently inquired after his son, and had always been amused with fallacious and evasive answers; but, being now in his own opinion on his death-bed, he thought it his duty to provide for him among his other natural children 3, and therefore demanded a positive account of him, with an importunity not to be diverted or denied. His mother, who could no longer refuse an answer, determined at least to give such as should cut him off for ever from that happiness which competence affords, and therefore declared that he was dead*; which is perhaps the first instance of a lie invented by a mother to deprive her

He died Aug. 18, 1712. Johnson's Works, viii. 101 n.

Swift wrote to Stella on Oct. 9, 1712:-' Did I tell you of Lord Rivers's will? He has left legacies to about twenty paltry old whores by name, and not a farthing to any friend, dependant, or relation: he has left from his only child, Lady Barrymore, her mother's estate, and given the whole to his heir-male, a popish priest, a second cousin, who is now Earl Rivers, and whom he used in his life like a footman. After him it goes to his chief wench and bastard. ... I loved the man, but detest his memory.' Works, iii. 52. Swift described him as 'an arrant knave in common dealings, and very prostitute.' Ib. xii. 227. See also ib. ii. 103, 448.

The editor of The Wentworth Papers (p. 300) states that 'from another letter written about this time [1712] we gather that Lord Rivers left his mistress, Mrs. Colliton, £2,500 a year for life, his natural daughter £10,000, and £500 a year to Mrs. Oldfield the Player."' For Mrs. Oldfield see post, Savage, 42.

In 1719 Jacob stated that 'some unfair methods had been put in practice to deceive Earl Rivers by a false report of his son's death.' Poet. Reg. i. 297. In 1724 this statement was enlarged :-'Of two fathers whom he might have claimed, both of them noble, he lost the title of the one, and a provision from the other's pity by the means alone of this mother.' The Plain Dealer, No. 28. In 1727, in the Life, p. 7, this story was again enlarged:-'It was while he was at this school that Earl Rivers died, who had several times made enquiry after him, but could never get any satisfactory account of him; and when on his death-bed he more strenuously demanded to know what was become of him, in order to make him a partaker in the distribution of that very handsome estate he left among his natural children, he was positively told he was dead. Thus was he, whilst (as he expressed it himself) legally the son of one Earl, and naturally the son of another, by the management of his own mother denied the benefit of belonging to either of them.' There is no mention of the £6,000 of the next paragraph.