Despair

This is one of a paired set of prints,Despair and Hope, published the same day (Apri 8, 1802). It all started with a Member of Parliament, Richard Bateman Robson, asserting in a debate on the Army Estimates in the House of Commons on March 4, 1802 that the "finances of the country were in so desperate a situation that government was unable to discharge its bills." Or in Gillray's parody of Robson's style:

We're all ruinated, Sir!
__all diddled, Sir!!
__abus'd by Placemen, Sir!!!
__Bankrupts all, Sir!
__not worth Sixteen Pounds, Ten Shillings, Sir!

Despair

Despair [April 8, 1802]
© Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University

Since the assertion was ultimately determined to have been founded on the refusal of payment for a single bill of a mere £19 17s at a single government office, it should have been ignored as meaningless hyperbole as soon as it was said. And indeed Robson almost immediately backtracked, noting that the claim had been made "in the warmth of argument," and had "better not to be investigated." But it seems to have struck a nerve in the Ministry, and Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer Addington responded that

if it was a thing which it were better not to inquire into, it was a thing which had better not have been said. The hon. gentleman had said it; he was bound to prove it or retract it.

This set off a cascade of arguments, back and forth, as both sides dug in to defend themselves. Those arguments were then duly reported in multiple newspapers in London, of course, but as far away as Edinburgh, over the next several days. At some point, a basically trivial incident became newsworthy enough for Gillray to create the first of the two plates, Despair, caricaturing Robson and his speech.

Robson was generally regarded as a crank and most of his parliamentary speeches seemed to focus on (hyperbolically described) poor choices and wasteful spending of government. He was ignorant (or disdainful) of Parliamentary rules so he was sometimes frustrated in advancing his ideas by his own incompetence. In Gillray's caricature of him, Robson is shown with pockets stuffed with notes, labeled "Ignorance of ye Old Administration, "Stupidity of ye New Administration," and "Charges against the Ministry." Not surprisingly, most of the motions he advanced found very little support among his colleagues as suggested by the sparsely populated benches behind him.

The only significant exception came from another cranky independent, Thomas Tyrwhitt Jones, who appears directly behind Robson in Gillray's print, ready to take notes. Jones teamed up with Robson on a number of occasions, Jones supporting Robson and Robson supporting Jones. One of those instances concerned Jones's motion in December 1800 for "Dismissal of His Majesty's Ministers." In his speech supporting the motion, Robson said

it was more necessary than ever that the conduct of ministers should come frequently under discussion [so] that the people who paid the expenses incurred by their profusion might know the system they pursued; that they might know that the taxes were paid by themsleves and not by placemen whose sinecures were unaffected by the war. He would venture to say that there was a dead majority of the house, who, being employed some way or other under government, paid nothing to the income tax.

Another instance concerned Jones's motion for a further investigation (March 1801) of the Pitt administration's breach of the convention of El Arish. In support of Jones's motion to investigate the ministry's actions, Robson said that "the late ministers deserved impeachment." Both incidents are alluded to in Gillray's version of Robson's speech ("abused by placemen") and in the notes in the hat beside Jones which include papers labeled "Impeach[ment]," and "Punishm[ent]."

In the final division concluding the debate, Robson had only two supporters other than the teller, James Martin. They were Tyrwhitt Jones and John Nicholls. In Gillray's portrayal of the scene, however, he leaves out Martin and Nicholls and instead includes Sir Francis Burdett and Horne Tooke. Robson supported Burdett in his opposition to the suspension of Habeas Corpus in December 1800. And in March 1801, Burdett and Robson both voted in support of Grey's motion to create a Committee on the State of the Nation. But neither Burdett nor Tooke (whose return to Parliament after a long absence had been sponsored by Burdett) were involved in the Robson debate. I can only suppose that Gillray included them because like Robson and Jones, they took a certain pride in taking minority positions and presenting them as absolutely as possible.

Sources and Reading

Comments & Corrections

NOTE: Comments and/or corrections are always appreciated. To make that easier, I have included a form below that you can use. I promise never to share any of the info provided without your express permission.

First Name:
 Last Name:
Email Address:
Comments/Corrections: