Various - Notes and Queries, Number 210, November 5, 1853

With reference to the insinuation that Newton owed his official position rather to his niece than to his ability, it can be completely shown that, on the worst possible supposition, the office in the Mint could have had nothing to do with Mrs. C. Barton. Newton was appointed to the lower office (the Wardenship ) in March, 1695-96, when the young lady was not sixteen years old, and before she could have been a resident under her uncle's roof. The state of the coinage had caused much uneasiness; it was one of the difficulties, and its restoration was one of the successes, of the day. The best scientific advice was taken: Locke, Newton, and Halley were consulted, and all were placed in office nearly at the same time; Newton in the London Mint, Halley in the Chester Mint, Locke in the Council of Trade. Neither Locke nor Halley had any nieces. Before Newton's appointment there was some negociation of a public character: the Wardenship was not vacant, and the government seems to have tried to induce Newton to take something subordinate. March 14, Newton wrote to Halley, in reference to a current rumour,—"I neither put in for any place in the Mint, nor would meddle with Mr. Hoar's [the comptroller's] place, were it offered me." On the 19th, Montague informs Newton that he is to have the Wardenship , vacant by the removal of Mr. Overton to the Customs. Four years afterwards, when the great operation on the coinage, by many declared impracticable, had completely succeeded, Newton, a principal adviser and the principal administrator, obtained the Mastership in the course of promotion. Montague was raised to the peerage in the following year, and mainly, as the patent states, for the same service. So that, though Montague was the patron as to the Wardenship, yet scientific assistance was then so sorely needed, that no hypothesis relative to any niece would be necessary to explain the phenomenon of Newton's appointment: while, as to the Mastership it may almost be said that Montague was more indebted to Newton for his peerage, than Newton to Montague for that promotion which any minister must, under the circumstances, have granted.

In no account of Newton that I ever read is it stated that Mrs. Barton was an intimate friend of Swift, probably through Halifax. Having been told that there is frequent mention of her in Swift's Journal to Stella , I examined that series and the rest of the correspondence, in which her name occurs about twenty times. One letter from herself, under the name of Conduitt (November 29, 1733), is indorsed by the Dean, "My old friend Mrs. Barton, now Mrs. Conduitt," and establishes the identity of Swift's friend with Newton's niece: otherwise, it proves nothing here. The other points to be noticed are as follows.

1710, September 28, November 30, March 7; 1711, April 3, July 18, October 14 and 25, Swift visited or dined with Mrs. Barton at her lodgings . He was also at this time on good terms with Halifax, and dined with him November 28, 1710, and with Mrs. Barton on November 30. According to the idiom of the day, lodgings was a name for every kind of residence, and even for the apartments of a guest in the house of his host. For anything to the contrary in the mere word, the lodgings might have been in the house of Lord Halifax, or of Newton himself. But, on the other hand, the future Dean, much as he writes to Stella of every kind of small talk, never mentions Halifax and Mrs. Barton together, never makes the slightest allusion to either in connexion with the other, though in one and the same letter he minutes his having dined with Halifax on the 28th, and with Mrs. Barton on the 30th. There must have been intentional suppression in this. All the world knew that there was some liaison between the two; yet when Swift (1711, Nov. 20) records his having been "teased with whiggish discourse" by Mrs. Barton, he does not even drop a sarcasm about her politics having been learnt from Halifax. This is the more remarkable as the two seem to have been almost the only persons who are mentioned as talking whiggery to him. To this list, however, may be added Lady Betty Germain, well known to the readers of Swift's poetry, who joined Mrs. Barton in inflicting the vexation, and at whose house the conversation took place. It thus appears that Mrs. Barton was received in a manner which shows that she was regarded as a respectable woman. The suppression on the part of Swift may indicate respect for his two friends (that he highly respected Mrs. Barton appears clear), and observance of a convention established in their circle. But perhaps it is rather to be attributed to his own position with respect to Stella, which was certainly peculiar, though no one can say what their understanding was at the date of the journal. This journal came again into Swift's hands before it was published; so that we can only treat it as containing what he finally chose to preserve. Allusions may have been struck out.

There is another point which our modern manners will not allow to be very closely handled in print, but on which I am disposed to lay some stress. On September 28, 1710, and April 3, 1711, Swift visited Mrs. Barton at her lodgings. On each of these occasions she regaled him with a good story, which there is no need to repeat: there is no harm in either, and they are far from being the most singular communications which he made to Stella; but they go beyond what, even in that day, will be considered as the probable conversation of a maiden lady of thirty-one, with a bachelor man of the world of forty-three. But they by no means exceed what we know to be the license then taken by married women; and Swift's tone with respect to the stories, combined with his obvious respect for Mrs. Barton, may make any one lean to the supposition that he believed himself to be talking to a married woman.

The reserve of Swift puts us quite at fault as to the locality of Mrs. Barton's lodgings . They may have been in Lord Halifax's house; but if not, it requires some supposition to explain why they were not in that of Newton, with whom she had lived, and with whom she certainly lived after the death of Halifax. Perhaps, when farther research is made in such directions as may be indicated by the only unreserved statement of the existing case which has ever been printed, the conclusion I arrive at, as to me the most probable , may either be reinforced, or another substituted for it. Be this as it may, such points as I have discussed, relating to such men as Newton, will not remain in abeyance for ever, let biographers be as timid as they will.

Amongst my autographs I find the inclosed letter frown Dr. Parr. It is written upon a half-sheet of paper, and in a very cramp and illegible hand. To whom it is addressed, or when written, I am unable to say. As it relates to the opinions held by Milton, perhaps you may think it worth insertion in your work, particularly as Milton has been the subject of some papers in "N. & Q." lately.

Dear Sir,

I send you Johnson's Life of Milton . My former feelings again return upon me, that Johnson did not mean to affirm that Milton prayed not upon any occasion or in any manner; but that he was engaged in no visible worship; that he prayed at no stated time; that he had not what we may call any regular return of family or private devotion. Pray read the sequel. That he lived without prayer can hardly be affirmed, this surely is decided in my favour: it may wear the appearance of contradiction to the former passage, that omitting public prayer he omitted all; in truth, the expression just quoted is too peremptory and too general. But the sense of Johnson cannot be mistaken, if you attend to the different views he had in each sentence; and I repeat my former assertion, that Johnson did not think Milton destitute of a devout spirit, or totally negligent of prayer in some form or other.