The Love Letters of Mr. H. & Miss R.

The Love-Letters of

Mr. H. & Miss R.

1775-1779

EDITED BY

GILBERT BURGESS

CHICAGO

STONE & KIMBALL

MDCCCXCV

[Pg 5]

INTRODUCTION

The strange and pathetic story that is told in the love letters that passed between Mr. Hackman and Miss Reay, excited widespread attention and sympathy during the spring of the year 1779, and interest in the affair was revived in the following year by the publication of an anonymous book in which some of these letters, in a garbled form, were inserted.

The originals, or copies of the originals—for Hackman was sufficiently romantic to have kept copies of his own letters—were given to Kearsly, the publisher, by Mr. Frederick Booth, Hackman’s brother-in-law, in consequence of Kearsly having issued a pamphlet, on the 24th of April, 1779, called “The Case and Memoirs of the late Revd. Mr. James Hackman,” which was full of errors. In the Public Advertiser of the 24th of [Pg 6]April, 1779, Booth, in view of the advertised publication of the “Case and Memoirs” by Kearsly, announced positively that no materials for a life of Hackman could possibly be obtained except through him, as all the necessary letters and documents were in his possession. Croft’s edition of the letters was issued by the same publisher in the spring of the following year. It is not quite clear whether Booth was approached by Kearsly or by Croft; but that he (Booth) was satisfied with the latter’s work is evident from the fact that it elicited no further protest from him.

Sir Herbert Croft, Bart., was born at Dunster Park, Berkshire, on November 1, 1751. In March, 1771, he matriculated at University College, Oxford,⁠[1] where Scott—afterwards Lord Stowell—was his tutor.⁠[2] He then entered Lincoln’s Inn, but want of means did not allow him to continue in the profession of the law, so in 1782 he returned to Oxford, and decided for the Church. In April, 1785, he took the degree of B.C.L., and in 1786 he received the vicarage of [Pg 7]Prittlewell,⁠[3] in Essex. During his sojourn at Lincoln’s Inn, he wrote many tracts and pamphlets; he also tried to compile an English dictionary, but he found that £100 a year—the amount he had available for that purpose—was hardly sufficient.

[1] Nichols’ “Literary Illustrations,” v. 202.

[2] “Dict. Nat. Biog.” (Stephen.)

[3] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1816, pt. i. 470.

He also wrote the life of Young for Johnson’s series of the Lives of the Poets.⁠[4] Croft was somewhat eccentric in the management of his finances, and was always begging money or preferment from his friends; there is a letter in the British Museum⁠[5] from him to Bishop Douglas,⁠[6] in which he complains of having been cold-shouldered by Pitt, whose favour he had tried to gain by offering [Pg 8]to insert verses in favour of that politician in a book he was writing. There is also a letter,⁠[7] dated 13th of October, 1796, to Bishop Douglas’ son, the Rev. W. Douglas, written from Exeter Gaol, “the common prison—pudet hoc approbria!” as Croft says, where he was imprisoned for a debt of £40, which he hopes Mr. Douglas will send at once. Croft subsequently lived in France with the eccentric Lady Mary Hamilton.

[4] Among Croft’s other works were: “A Brother’s Advice to his Sisters,” 1775. “Fanaticism and Treason,” “The Literary Fly,” 1780. “The Abbey of Kilhampton,” 1780—a series of anticipatory epitaphs upon prominent living personages. “Sunday Evenings,” 1784, religious discourses, which Dr. Johnson disapproved of on account of their levity of style (Boswell’s Johnson, Morley’s edition, iv. 231), and a curious French work, “Horace éclairci par la ponctuation,” Paris, 1810.

[5] Egerton MSS. 2185, fol. 172.

[6] John Douglas, Bishop of Salisbury. (Gent. Mag. 1807, pt. i. 475.)

[7] Egerton MSS. 2186, fol. 88-93.

On the death of Chatterton, Croft obtained from the poet’s sister, Mrs. Newton, his letters and manuscripts, and, foreseeing that the Hackman-Reay correspondence would have a large sale, he decided to include the Chatterton matter in the volume, which he entitled “Love and Madness.” He clumsily put his papers into the form of a letter from Hackman, which was marked No. 49 in the original book, and is included in the Appendix to the present volume. The difference in the style of this letter from that of all the others was so apparent that suspicion fell upon the authenticity of other parts of the volume.

[Pg 9]

John Nichols⁠[8] mentions “Love and Madness” as having passed through seven editions. “These letters,” he continues, “are given as the correspondence of Mr. Hackman and Miss Reay.... They are enlivened with a variety of anecdotes, chiefly of a literary kind. Among other miscellaneous matters, the story of that extraordinary genius, Thomas Chatterton, is introduced at great length, with critical observations on his writings; an account of his publication of ‘Poems,’ said to have been written by one Rowley, a monk, about 300 years ago; of his other schemes of authorship, and, finally, of his unhappy exit, in the eighteenth year of his age.... If this be all ‘borrowed personage,’ as Mr. Walpole expressed it, it is so ingenious a fiction, that the author will be praised, perhaps, for his abilities even by those who may find themselves inclined to impeach his honesty.”

[8] “Literary Illustrations,” v. 203.

In the Monthly Magazine for November, 1799, Robert Southey brought a charge against Croft of having obtained the papers and letters relating to Chatterton from the [Pg 10]unfortunate poet’s sister, Mrs. Newton, under false pretences. Croft, who was at that time in Denmark, sent a very foolish and evasive reply to the same Magazine,⁠[9] in which he said that he must first arrange Southey’s abuse, for that gentleman wrote prose somewhat like bad poetry, and poetry somewhat like bad prose. He entirely ignored the main charge brought against him, and his vulgar attack upon Southey brought him justly into contempt among the literary men of the day.

[9] Gentleman’s Magazine, February, March and April, 1800.

The Rev. Charles Cuthbert Southey, who edited his father’s “Life and Correspondence,” writes to Grosvenor C. Bedford, upon this subject.

“Sir Herbert Croft had obtained possession from Mrs. Newton (Chatterton’s sister) of all her brother’s letters and MSS. under promise of speedily returning them; instead of which, some months afterwards, he incorporated and published them in a pamphlet, entitled ‘Love and Madness.’

“At the use thus surreptitiously made of her brother’s writings, Mrs. Newton more than [Pg 11]once remonstrated; but, beyond the sum of £10, she could obtain no redress. Mr. Cottle⁠[10] and my father now took the matter up, and the former wrote to Sir H. Croft, pointing out to him Mrs. Newton’s reasonable claim, and urging him by a timely concession to prevent that publicity which otherwise would follow.

[10] A well-known Bristol bookseller.

“He received no answer; and my father then determined to print by subscription all Chatterton’s works, including those ascribed to Rowley, for the benefit of Mrs. Newton and her daughter. He accordingly sent proposals to the Monthly Magazine, in which he detailed the whole case between Mrs. Newton and Sir Herbert Croft, and published their respective letters. The public sympathised rightly on the occasion, for a handsome subscription followed. Sir Herbert Croft was residing in Denmark at the time these proposals were published, and he replied to my father’s statement by a pamphlet full of much personal abuse.”

However, Mr. Cottle and Southey published the edition in three volumes 8vo, and the editors had the satisfaction of paying over [Pg 12]to Mrs. Newton and her daughter upwards of £300.

Southey again brought charges against Croft in the Gentlemen’s Magazine for March 1800. He says “Sir Herbert does not deny his promises to the family of after assistance, nor that when Mrs. Newton applied for it, he required a certificate of her character from the Clergyman of the Parish.”

In a note to the ninth edition of “Love and Madness,” Croft excuses himself for having pretended that Mr. Hackman had visited Bristol to find out facts about Chatterton, by referring to an extract from the fourteenth letter in “Love and Madness.”

The passage he mentions is as follows:

“Robinson Crusoe now—what nature! It affects us throughout, exactly in the way you mentioned. But, shall I finish my dissertation? come—as writing to you gives me so much pleasure, and as I cannot do anything to you but write this morning, I know you will excuse me. Did you ever hear to what Crusoe owed his existence? You remember Alexander Selkirk’s strange sequestration at Juan Fernandez. It is mentioned, I believe, in Walter’s account of Anson’s voyage, when [Pg 13]Captain Woodes Rogers met with him and brought him to England, he employed the famous Daniel de Foe to revise his papers. That fertile genius improved upon the materials, and composed the celebrated story of Robinson Crusoe. The consequence was that Selkirk, who soon after made his appearance in print, was considered as a bastard of Crusoe, with which spurious offspring the press too often teems. In De Foe, undoubtedly, this was not honest. Had Selkirk given him his papers, there could have been no harm in working them up his own way. I can easily conceive a writer making his

own use of a known fact, and filling up the outlines which have been sketched by the bold and hasty hand of fate. A moral may be added, by such means, to a particular incident; characters may be placed in their just and proper lights; mankind may be amused (and amusements, sometimes, prevent crimes), or, if the story be criminal, mankind may be bettered, through the channel of their curiosity. But I would not be dishonest, like De Foe; nor would I pain the breast of a single individual connected with this story.”

[Pg 14]

Yet Croft, who thus denounces Defoe, announced subsequently that he himself had acted with precisely the same dishonesty in the matter of Mr. Hackman’s correspondence. A further light is thrown upon the matter by an advertisement to the eighth edition of “The Case and Memoirs;” the author, who, on the evidence of a rhymed lampoon in one of the papers of the day, was one Manasseh Dawes,⁠[11] a barrister and literary hack, says that, being a gentleman, he wishes to keep that character inviolate; consequently, he thinks it necessary to declare that all the facts are genuine, as he will testify and explain, if necessary, on an application to him at Mr. Kearsly’s (the publisher), and he hopes that, therefore, his numerous readers will not now suppose that he has “intruded anything on the public with intent to catch the penny of curiosity, at the expense of truth and candour.”

[11] Public Advertiser, June 3, 1779.

When this was written Kearsly had possession of the real facts of the case, and was able to invite investigation.

The enormous success of “Love and Madness” tempted Croft to declare himself [Pg 15]the author of the Chatterton excerpt, and also to hint that of the entire work only the outline was true. The word outline is easily expansible, and, considering that the letter about Chatterton, and two or three other obvious additions, formed half the volume, he was, perhaps, justified in claiming his portion. Croft says that he dedicates the ninth edition to Johnson, because the Doctor had expressed his appreciation of the work. But Boswell records⁠[12] that Johnson censured and much disapproved of “Love and Madness,” on account of the mingling of the fact with the fiction—that is to say, the inclusion of the Chatterton papers among the Hackman-Reay correspondence.

[12] Boswell’s Johnson (Henry Morley), iv. 134.

As several of the connecting links in the narrative are missing, I have endeavoured to weave the letters into a coherent narrative; in one or two instances I have been obliged to suppress certain passages, by reason of their having been written at a time when there was a greater license of expression than is permissible nowadays. I have also omitted, in two of the letters, references to Chatterton which Croft introduced to give [Pg 16]verisimilitude to his assertion that the long letter containing the life of the poet was written by Hackman.

No record of Croft’s own work tallies at all with the idea that he created such a romance. But, apart from the controversy, the story and the letters seem to me to be a veritable “human document” of strong interest. And, after exhaustive investigation, I am convinced that such a document is only explainable on the grounds of a real living correspondence and that these letters are, without doubt, those that passed between Hackman and Miss Reay.

April, 1895.

[Pg 17]

PART I AT HINCHINBROOK

James Hackman, who figures as Mr. H. in this collection of letters, was born at Gosport, in the year 1752. His father was a retired Naval Lieutenant, with a modest income, which, however, was large enough to enable him to give his son a good general education, and to send him subsequently to St. John’s College, Cambridge.

On leaving the University, James Hackman was apprenticed to a mercer in his native town but soon tiring of trade, he persuaded his father to buy him an ensigncy in the 68th Regiment of Foot. He was then quartered upon a recruiting party at Huntingdon, where he first made the acquaintance of the famous (or infamous) Earl of Sandwich, who was the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. Cradock, in his “Memoirs,” writes that a friend of Lord Sandwich’s was a candidate [Pg 20]for the Chemistry Professorship at Cambridge, and that, as Cradock had been solicited for his vote and interest, the Earl invited him to travel in his coach, and to stay with him at his seat, Hinchinbrook, on his return journey to London. Cradock continues:

“We went together and passed a very pleasant evening with a numerous party at the Rose Tavern, and having voted next morning, we returned to Hinchinbrook. Lord Sandwich, on meeting his neighbour, Major Reynolds, in the gateway with another officer, insisted on their alighting, and taking a family dinner at his house. The Major apologised for his intrusion, hoped his Lordship would excuse the liberty he had taken in bringing a brother officer with him, and then introduced his friend, Captain Hackman. The party merely consisted of Lord Sandwich, Miss Ray, and a lady with her, the two gentlemen, and myself. Dinner was soon served, and coffee called for. We played two rubbers at whist. Lord Sandwich held with Miss Ray, against Major Reynolds and myself; Captain Hackman requesting that he might only look over the cards.”

The Miss Ray (or Reay, as the name [Pg 21]should be written) mentioned by Cradock, was living at Hinchinbrook, under the protection of Lord Sandwich, to the easily imaginable distress of Lady Sandwich.

At the age of fourteen, Miss Reay had been apprenticed to a mantua-maker in Clerkenwell, and was subsequently introduced by her father, a stay-maker, to a customer of his, a woman of infamous profession, who, thinking that the girl was exceedingly pretty and intelligent, mentioned her to the dissolute Lord Sandwich. The Earl fell in love with Miss Reay the moment he saw her, and immediately took her under his protection. He gave her a good education, and had her thoroughly trained in music, of which art he was passionately fond; he himself, Cradock tells us, was no mean performer upon the kettle-drums! Oratorios and concerts were frequently given at Hinchinbrook, in which Miss Reay, owing to her beautiful voice, took part; her personal charm and manner must have been exceptionally attractive, for it is related that she even captivated a Bishop’s lady, who was terribly exercised at finding herself seated directly opposite to her at a dinner-party. Hackman was so fascinated [Pg 22]by Miss Reay that he could not keep away from the neighbourhood of Hinchinbrook,

and, being a handsome, high-spirited young fellow, he soon became a welcome and frequent guest at the house. The result was that he fell desperately in love with his host’s mistress, and it was not long before his love was reciprocated, and a clandestine correspondence ensued. The first two letters he sent to Miss Reay are written from Huntingdon.

Dec. 4, 1775.

Dear Martha,

Ten thousand thanks for your billet by my corporal Trim yesterday. The fellow seemed happy to have been the bearer of it, because he saw it made me happy. He will be as good a soldier to Cupid as to Mars, I dare say. And Mars and Cupid are not now to begin their acquaintance, you know. Whichever he serve, you may command him of course, without a compliment; for Venus, I need not tell you, is the mother of Cupid, and mistress of Mars.

At present the drum is beating up under my window for volunteers to Bacchus. In [Pg 23]plain English, the drum tells me dinner is ready; for a drum gives us bloody-minded heroes an appetite for eating, as well as for fighting; nay, we get up by the beat of it, and it every night sends, or ought to send, us to bed and to sleep. To-night it will be late before I get to one or the other, I fancy—indeed, the thoughts of you would prevent the latter. But the next disgrace to refusing a challenge, is refusing a toast. The merit of a jolly fellow and of a sponge is much about the same. For my part, no glass of any liquor tastes as it should to me, but when I kiss my Martha on the rim.

Adieu—whatever hard service I may have after dinner, no quantity of wine shall make me let drop or forget my appointment with you to-morrow. We certainly were not seen yesterday, for reasons I will give you.

Though you should persist in never being mine,

Ever, ever

Yours.

[Pg 24]

Huntingdon, Dec. 6th, 1775.

My Dearest Martha,

No, I will not take advantage of the sweet, reluctant, amorous confession which your candour gave me yesterday. If to make me happy be to make my Martha otherwise; then, happiness, I’ll none of thee.

And yet I could argue. Suppose he has bred you up—suppose you do owe your numerous accomplishments, under genius, to him—are you therefore his property? Is it as if a horse that he has bred up should refuse to carry him? Suppose you therefore are his property—will the fidelity of so many years weigh nothing in the scale of gratitude?

Years—why, can obligations (suppose they had not been repaid an hundred fold) do away the unnatural disparity of years? Can they bid five-and-fifty stand still (the least that you could ask), and wait for five-and-twenty? Many women have the same obligations (if indeed there be many of the same accomplishments) to their fathers. They have the additional obligation to them (if, indeed, it be an obligation) of existence. The disparity of years is sometimes even [Pg 25]less. But, must they therefore take their fathers to their bosoms? Must the jessamine fling its tender arms around the dying elm?

To my little fortunes you are no stranger. Will you share them with me? And you shall tell his Lordship that gratitude taught you to pay every duty to him, till love taught you there were other duties which you owed to H.

Gracious heaven, that you would pay them!

But, did I not say I would not take advantage? I will not. I will even remind you of your children; to whom I, alas! could only show at present the affection of a father.

Martha weighs us in the scales. If gratitude out-balance love—so.

If you command it, I swear by love, I’ll join my regiment to-morrow.

If love prevail, and insist upon his dues, you shall declare the victory and the prize. I will take no advantage.

Think over this. Neither will I take you by surprise. Sleep upon it, before you return your answer. Trim shall make the old excuse to-morrow. And, thank heaven! to-night you sleep alone.

[Pg 26]