FullReads

It does not appear, however, that his fancy led him with any decided bent to prose composition, and he very early deserted it for verse; though he is said to have, at a comparatively late period of his short life, worked in harness as a regular leader-writer for the Morning Post during more than a year. No examples of this work of his have been reprinted, nor, so far as I know, does any means of identifying them exist, though I personally should like to examine them. He was still at Cambridge when he drifted into another channel, which was still not his own channel, but in which he feathered his oars under two different flags with no small skill and dexterity. Sir George Young has a very high idea of his uncle’s political verse, and places him “first among English writers, before Prior, before Canning, before the authors of the ‘Rolliad,’ and far before Moore or any of the still anonymous contributors to the later London press.” I cannot subscribe to this. Neither as Whig nor as Tory, neither as satirist of George the Fourth nor as satirist of the Reform Bill, does Praed seem to me to have been within a hundred miles of that elder schoolfellow of his who wrote

All creeping creatures, venomous and low,
Still blasphemous or blackguard, praise Lepaux.

He has nothing for sustained wit and ease equal to the best pieces of the “Fudge Family” and the “Two-penny Postbag”; and (for I do not know why one should not praise a man because he happens to be alive and one’s friend) I do not think he has the touch of the true political satirist as Mr. Traill has it in “Professor Baloonatics Craniocracs,” or in that admirable satire on democracy which is addressed to the “Philosopher Crazed, from the Island of Crazes.”

Indeed, by mentioning Prior, Sir George seems to put himself rather out of court. Praed is very nearly if not quite Prior’s equal, but the sphere of neither was politics. Prior’s political pieces are thin and poor beside his social verse, and with rare exceptions I could not put anything political of Praed’s higher than the shoe-string of “Araminta.” Neither of these two charming poets seems to have felt seriously enough for political satire. Matthew, we know, played the traitor; and though Mackworth ratted to my own side, I fear it must be confessed that he did rat. I can only discover in his political verse two fixed principles, both of which no doubt did him credit, but which hardly, even when taken together, amount to a sufficient political creed. The one was fidelity to Canning and his memory: the other was impatience of the cant of the reformers. He could make admirable fun of Joseph Hume, and of still smaller fry like Waithman; he could attack Lord Grey’s nepotism and doctrinairism fiercely enough. Once or twice, or, to be fair, more than once or twice, he struck out a happy, indeed a brilliant flash. He was admirable at what Sir George Young calls, justly enough, “political patter songs” such as,

Young widowhood shall lose its weeds,
Old kings shall loathe the Tories,
And monks be tired of telling beads,
And Blues of telling stories;
And titled suitors shall be crossed,
And famished poets married,
And Canning’s motion shall be lost,
And Hume’s amendment carried;
And Chancery shall cease to doubt,
And Algebra to prove,
And hoops come in, and gas go out
Before I cease to love.

He hit off an exceedingly savage and certainly not wholly just “Epitaph on the King of the Sandwich Islands” which puts the conception of George the Fourth that Thackeray afterwards made popular, and contains these felicitous lines:

The people in his happy reign,
Were blessed beyond all other nations:
Unharmed by foreign axe and chain,
Unhealed by civic innovations;
They served the usual logs and stones,
With all the usual rites and terrors,
And swallowed all their fathers’ bones,
And swallowed all their fathers’ errors.