By R.W. Morrell
Thomas Paine: The Case Of The King Of England And His Officers Of Excise. George Hindmarch. 95pp. Paperback. Purley, published by the author, 1998. ISBN 0 9531981. Unpriced.
This short essay is unquestionably a major contribution to Paine studies, though likely to be considered rather on the controversial side in that it casts Paine in a role few, if any, of his admirers would have thought even remotely possible, for it is the belief of the author that Paine was ‘an undercover agent’ for George III (p.56) and wrote his Case of the Officers of Excise in support of him as well as on behalf of his excise colleagues (p.51). This was his first political publication, the promotion of which ‘was the apprenticeship Paine served as a political propagandist’ (p.3’7), however, those who he believes were behind Paine, or as he puts it, ‘the high dignitaries who stood in the obscurity of Paine’s shadow’, had no intention of revealing to ‘the majority of the readers to whom it was selectively addressed’ the pamphlet’s ‘main purpose’ (p.11). And this ‘purpose’? According to Mr. Hindmarch it was to promote the king’s case for an increase in the Civil List, which had been set at £8000,000 annually when he came to the throne in 1750, but because of inflation it had become insufficient to cover his expenses, which included paying the salaries of excise officers.
Mr. Hindmarch draws upon many sources for evidence to support his thesis, including the archives of the Customs and Excise Department, which most Paine scholars have curiously tended to neglect, numerous economic and historic studies and, of course, Paine’s own works, in particular his excise essay. Taken as a whole this impressive volume of material provides him with a solid foundation from which to work. He is the first researcher to recognise the difficulties Paine would have had to overcome had he been alone in attempting to mobilise support amongst the nation’s 3000 riding officers as well as collecting the three shilling voluntary donation each had been asked to give. The author rightly refers to ‘undistinguished writers’ (on Thomas Paine) who fail ‘to research into his background’ thus perpetuating ‘a number of serious misrepresentations’ (p.9), a point also made by the late Audrey Williamson (cf. Thomas Paine, His Life, Work and Times. Allen & Unwin, 1973. chapter 3).
Working alone Paine would have been unable to overcome these problems, however, he had the active backing of a recently appointed Excise Commissioner, George Lewis Scott, who was supported by his fellow commissioners (the author rejects the claim of previous biographers about the Excise Board being hostile to Paine’s activities (p.36)), and it was Scott who co-ordinated the circulation of officers and arranged the collection of their ‘donations’, for unlike Paine he would have had access to the essential address list and the authority to apply pressure on subordinates (p.38). It is not without significance that Scott was an intimate of the king, having been his tutor in his youth. Mr.Hindmarch contends it was Scott’s role ‘to persuade Parliament that changes in the king’s static civil list arrangements were necessary in the national interest’, using a ‘forceful cogent argument from the principal fundraising Department – the Excise. The much hated excisemen were to lead the campaign…’ (p.30).
On the debit side is the fact that Paine never acknowledged publicly or privately any involvement in a scheme to help the king, which would have made him, in effect, ‘an undercover agent of the king’, or that such a scheme was part of his brief when writing his Case of the Officers of Excise. It is difficult to understand why he remained silent if he had been caught up in the operation of a hidden agenda. After he was outlawed he had nothing to lose by keeping silent. The same is true of the government, once Paine was known as being the author of Common Sense, to have revealed him as having acted as an agent for George III may well have created suspicions amongst his revolutionary colleagues about his trustworthiness and reliability, thus politically harming the colonial cause. Then there is George Chalmers, author of the first attempt at the character assassination of Paine, which he wrote under the fictitious name Francis Oldys. He could have used the information in his book, published in 1791, which would undoubtedly make Paine suspect by his French as being a potential agent for the English government, in other words, it would have paid the English authorities a dividend to have revealed the secret if there had been one. But Chalmers, who Mr.Hind march believes to have known all the details, remained silent. This is explained away by the author as being due to him not wishing to embarrass the king and government, the latter having not only paid him £500 to write the book but also accorded him maximum assistance to gather information.
There is what may be a reference by Paine to his involvement in a scheme such as postulated by the author. It occurs in his letter to Oliver Goldsmith, which accompanied a copy of The Case of the Officers of Excise he sent unsolicited to the playwright. Although he reproduces the letter in its entirety Mr. Hindmarch appears to have overlooked this comment, perhaps because of its ambiguity. However, it might (my emphasis) constitute evidence. Paine writes of George Chalmers (”Francis Oldys”) Portrait by H. Edridge acting in the humble station of an officer of excise, adding, ‘though somewhat differently circumstanced to what many of them are…’ A strange comment indeed, but it could just provide an important missing piece of the jigsaw. For the present it would be premature to draw any firm conclusions one way or another in respect of Mr.Hindmarch’s thesis, even though there is much to be said in its favour, as I have sought to show. Considerable further research and discussion is certainly required so what I would suggest is that anyone with a serious interest in Thomas Paine obtain a copy, assuming any are available, for I understand it was issued in a limited edition primarily for private circulation, to enable them to study the author’s thesis in detail.