Hope

This is the second of a paired set of prints both published the same day (April 8, 1802). The first was Despair. In that print, we find a Member of Parliament, Richard Bateman Robson asserting in a debate on March 4th concerning the Army Estimates, that the "finances of the country were in so desperate a situation that government was unable to discharge its bills." Robson was a crank and the debt that could not be discharged turned out to be a bill for £19 17s at a single government office. Nonetheless, the assertion provoked heated responses from the new Chancellor of Exchequer, Henry Addington, and what should have been a negligible remark became a cause celèbré for the rest of the week.

Hope

Hope [April 8, 1802]
© Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University

This print, Hope, can be seen as a kind of rejoinder. A large and gouty man, identified as William Dickinson, walks by the open door to the House of Commons. In the background, Addington is shown addressing the Chamber holding a sheaf of papers labeled 25 million, a reference to a 25 million dollar loan he was proposing to finance the government as part of his April 5th budget speech. The gouty man reacts to the speech and implicitly to the charge made in Despair that the government is "ruinated."

—let me see__25 Millions
__how are we Ruined?__
10 pr Cent for my Money!__ Income Tax taken off!__
well!__well!__well!__

At least two more lines have been crossed out and then burnished, leaving a blank area in the speech bubble, which remains oddly uncorrected as if Gillray had ceased to care about making it right.

There may be a possible (though complicated) explanation for that. In the British Museum commentary on this print, William Dickinson is described as "an undistinguished and apparently silent member, except that he seconded the Clergy Non-Residence Bill, 7 Apr. 1802." Why would Gillray choose a man like Dickinson, who seems to have absolutely no connection to the Robson debate to provide his response? It seems to make no sense.

The answer is that Gillray didn't—or not quite. As it turns out, there were two William Dickinsons who were MPs from Somerset, father and son. The father (1745 - 1806) was, as described in the British Museum commentary, a basically invisible member, who had no impact on debate and certainly no interest in Robson. But his son William Dickinson (1771 - 1837) was a different story. In the brief biography of the younger Dickinson in the History of Parliament, we learn that he "devoted his not inconsiderable abilities to the regular support of Pitt's administration" speaking at length on several occasions and impressing Pitt. In addition to suporting "his father's efforts to thwart vexatious prosecution of the clergy for non-residence," in March, 1802,

he condemned Bateman Robson's tactics in opposition and on 13 Dec. applauded the commission of naval inquiry, which together with the peace and tax relief did the ministry credit.

Here, then, is the connection between Dickinson and Robson, and an indication of friendliness, at this point, to the new Addington administration. But in March 1802, this William Dickinson was 31, far too young to be the figure in Gillray's print. His father, however, also William Dickinson, was 57—a much more likely age for Gillray's graying and gouty figure.

If I am right, Gillray mistakenly portrayed the father William Dickinson instead of his son. And a wonderful caricature portrait it is! But, unlike Gillray's similar mistake in his portrayal of John Russell instead of Francis Russell in the first state of The Republican Rattle-Snake Fascinating the Bedford-Squirrel, this error could not be quickly corrected by switching out a face or changing a hairstyle. This would be a major change. So if Gillray were now confronted with a problem in the speech bubble, he might have felt that it was not worth the effort. And given the fact that the Robson episode was now a month old, he may have decided (or been persuaded) that hs should just let it go.

Postscript

Since I wrote the commentary above, one of my subscribers, Donald Coverdale, noticed that an earlier state of this print was in fact sold in June 2019 by Dominic Winter Auctioneers. That state included the two lines which were awkwardly removed in the final, widely circulated version. We can now see the full text of the speech:

—let me see__25 Millions
__how are we Ruined?__
10 pr Cent for my Money!__ Income Tax taken off!__
well!__well!__well!__
a Speedy Peace & soon, I always said,
that's your Sort!

Gillray is likely to have removed the last two lines for the simple reason that they were factually wrong: Dickinson HAD NOT always favored a speedy peace. According to the entry for the younger Dickinson in The History of Parliament, "on 11 Dec. [1798] in reply to opposition clamour for peace, he said that the time was inopportune." And as recently as November 11, 1800, he had reiterated a similar position, saying that

the question was not whether peace was preferable to war, but whether, under all the circumstances of the case, peace could be obtained, consistently with the honour and good faith of the nation? France demanded from us, as the price of peace, what almost no nation ever demanded from another—a renunciation of all our alliances. . . . He had still to congratulate Great Britain on her resources, her power, and her navy, now at a higher pitch of glory than ever. Though a cloud hung over us at present, the uniform and vigorous conduct of the country would dispel it, and still bring all to a favourable final issue.

In other words, Dickinson was on record supporting the continuation of the war.

In the face of what would seem a contradiction of Dickinson's position, Gillray must have felt that he had to remove the lines. But then having discovered that he had portrayed the wrong Dickinson in the print, he made the most minimal of changes—burnishing out the offending lines—and had done with it.

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: