THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 1793
The Board of Agriculture—Secretaryship—Residence in
London—Twenty-five dinners a month—The King’s bull—The
Marquis de Castries—‘The Example of France’—Encomiums
thereof—Correspondence.
The most remarkable event of this year was the establishment of the
Board of Agriculture.[152] I found that Mr. Pitt had determined that
I should be secretary, and Mr. Le Blanc, of Caversham, informed me
that this new board was established with a view of rewarding me for
my ‘Example of France.’ In a conversation with Lord Loughborough on
the attendance required, he remarked, ‘You may do what suits
yourself best, I conceive, for we all consider ourselves so much
obliged to you that you cannot be rewarded in a manner too
agreeably.’ If the appointment of secretary be considered, as it has
been by many, a reward for what I had effected, it was not a
magnificent one; the salary, 400_l._ per annum, would have been
desirable had it left me more time in Suffolk, but when I found a
very strict attendance attached to it, with no house to assemble in
except Sir John Sinclair’s, and in a room common to the clerks and
all comers, I was much disposed to throw it up and go back in
disgust to my farm; but the advice of others and the apprehension of
family reproaches kept me to the annoyance of a situation not
ameliorated till Sir John was turned out of the Presidentship by Mr.
Pitt, and the Board procured a house for itself.
My letter to Mr. Pitt, asking for the secretaryship of the new Board
of Agriculture:—
‘Bradfield Hall: May 20, 1793.
‘Sir,—I am informed by Lord Sheffield and Sir John Sinclair that
the establishment of a Board of Agriculture is determined.
‘It has been the employment of the last thirty years of my life
to make myself as much a master of the practice and the
political encouragement of agriculture as my talents would
allow. I have examined every part of the kingdom, and have
farming correspondents in all the counties.
‘It is impossible I should know what is your intention in relation
to the office of the secretary; but the same wisdom that
established the Board will, without doubt, give such an
appointment to that office as may fill it in a manner the best
adapted to the business.
‘Should I be happy enough to appear in your eyes qualified for
such a post, and you would have the goodness to name me to it, it
might lessen the anxieties of a life that has been passed in the
service of the national agriculture; and I should feel with
unvarying gratitude the obligation of the favour.
‘I have the honour to be, sir, with the greatest respect,
‘Your most humble and obedient servant,
‘ARTHUR YOUNG.’
My reply to George Rose, Esq., on his communicating to me Mr. Pitt’s
approbation of my appointment:—
‘Bradfield Hall: May 30, 1793.
‘Sir,—It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the receipt of your
letter, as it shows that, whatever may be the result of the
present business, my exertions have met with the approbation of
Government, whose public-spirited and laudable views I have long
been solicitous to second.
‘The salary you mention is, I confess, less than I imagined would
be assigned to the office, but its being adequate or not depends
entirely on the circumstances of attendance, duty, residence, &c.
If these be arranged on a footing any way liberal, the sum is
equal to my desires; and I shall in that case accept the office
with pleasure. If, on the contrary, these points be so fixed as to
overturn my present pursuits in life, they would render a larger
salary less valuable to me than the sum you mention.
‘From the nature of the Board, intended to consist, as I
understand, of members of the two Houses, with the objects in
view, I take it for granted that the points above mentioned may,
without the least impediment to the business, be easily arranged.
‘Trusting in this entirely to Mr. Pitt and yourself, I beg your
good offices that, if I should have improperly expressed my
meaning, you will do me the justice to rely on the integrity of my
views, and not imagine me eager in making a bargain for profit
with a great and liberal benefactor.
‘I have the honour to remain &c.
‘ARTHUR YOUNG.’
What a change in the destination of a man’s life! Instead of
becoming the solitary lord of four thousand acres, in the keen
atmosphere of lofty rocks, and mountain torrents, with a little
creation rising gradually around me, making the black desert smile
with cultivation, and grouse give way to industrious population,
active and energetic, though remote and tranquil, and, every instant
of my existence, making _two blades of grass to grow_ where not one
was found before—behold me at a desk in the smoke, the fog, the din
of Whitehall. ‘Society has charms’—true; and so has solitude to a
mind employed. But the die is cast, and my steps may still be said,
metaphorically, to be in the furrow. My pleasures are of another
sort; I see daily a noble activity of zeal in the service of the
national husbandry in the President—of that happy effort of royal
patriotism, commendable and exemplary; and I see in so many great
and distinguished characters such a disinterested attention to the
public good, and such liberality of spirit in promoting it, that the
view is cheering, whether in a capital or a desert.
The two situations were incompatible with each other. I therefore
advertised the estate for sale; and nothing proves to me how very
ill understood waste lands are in this kingdom than the
advertisement being repeated near a twelvemonth before I could sell
it with much less profit than I had reason to expect. So large a
contiguous tract, in many respects so eligible for improvement, I
thought would have been a favourite object with numbers; as to the
ignorance of those who _viewed_ and _rejected_ it, I can only pity
them.
The attention I received from individuals was, however, very
flattering, for I find, by an old memorandum book, that I dined out
from twenty-five to thirty days in the month, and had, in that time,
forty invitations from people of the highest rank and consequence.
Here I copy a memorandum made at the time: August 21, ‘I feel an
advancement of a certain kind since the publication of my Travels,
well calculated to add agreeably to a new sphere in life by means of
this new Board; but how it will turn out is not easy to conjecture,
and my “Example of France: a Warning to Great Britain”[153] is
applauded in a manner of which I had not the slightest conception.
The Ministry commend it most highly, and express themselves in [a
way] truly gratifying to my feelings. The last time I was in town,
the Chancellor dwelt on the idea of how much they were all obliged
to me, and treated me as a man that _must_ be gratified when I was
explaining my wish to reside but little in London. And Rose’s report
from Mr. Pitt was equal; his own expression was that I had beat all
rivalship and produced the most useful work printed on the occasion,
&c. Thus I come with all the advantages I could wish—and I could see
in every eye and hear from every tongue of numbers to whom Sir John
Banks introduced me on the Terrace at Windsor that I was considered
as one to whom the nation was obliged. The King spoke to me, but not
so graciously as some years before; and this brought to my mind a
visit which Mr. Majendie and his brother, the Canon of Windsor, paid
me at Bradfield, when the latter asked me in a very significant
manner whether I had not said something against the King’s bull, as
it was commonly reported that I had fallen foul of his Majesty’s
dairy; so I suppose the man who showed me the cattle reported to the
King every word I had said of them, and possibly with additions. Who
is it that says one should be careful in a court not to offend even
a dog? However, Sir J. Sinclair reported to me some days afterwards
that his Majesty had expressed to him great satisfaction at my
appointment to the secretaryship of the Board.’
About this time I met Sir John Macpherson, from Bengal, but now from
Italy. He came by the Rhine; had a conversation with the King of
Prussia on my ‘Travels,’ which his Majesty was reading, and
commended greatly. He saw also the Marshal de Castries,[154] who was
likewise reading them, and praised me in the highest terms. Sir John
Macpherson told him that he had found my accounts of Lombardy so
uncommonly just and accurate that he intended seeing the author as
soon as he arrived in England. ‘Tell him, then,’ said the marshal,
‘that I did not know France till I read his admirable work, which
astonishes me for its truth, and extent and justness of
observation;’ and the next day he wrote to him pointing out an error
of mine in the passage relating to his opening the French West
Indies to foreign navigation. No man can speak in higher terms of a
book than Sir John does of this. He says it is the best that ever
was published. It is something whimsical that the ladies should tell
me it is as entertaining as a romance, and that statesmen should
praise it for its information. Faith! I had need be flattered to be
kept in good humour—losing my time doing nothing in London in
August.
_September 9._—Dined at Pinherring’s, the American ambassador; he is
a gentleman-like man; but for his company, though this was a great
entertainment, there was such a motley group as would be difficult
to find; they were so indelicate as to call for a war with England.
I preserved the following among letters of this year:—
_From the Countess of Bristol_
‘January 4, 1793.
‘Dear Sir,—In spite of a bad cold, which makes me very heavy and
ill qualified to write to _un homme d’esprit_, I must say a word
or two in answer to your letter, and also assure you that the one
you enclosed for Lord Bristol was forwarded by the same post to
his agent in town.
‘Do I recollect reading your "Travels"? Yes, certainly, and the
great pleasure and instruction I received from them; but the
approbation, I assure you, came from a better quarter, or I should
not have presumed on its being worth your acceptance. However that
may be, I am much pleased with the effect, and fairly confess that
I did wish to set your pen a-going, because you had _experience_
and _facts_ to write upon, and that I knew your warm colouring
would suit the picture—in short, I saw you were a convert. I
wished you to make others, and if I have been the least
instrumental by awakening the spark in you, I shall feel that I am
not wholly useless to the community where providence has placed
me. I think everybody with talents is called upon, particularly at
this time, to use them for the good of their once happy country,
and I know of no one better qualified than yourself to employ your
eloquence usefully.
‘The pamphlet you mention, of _an earnest address to farmers_, was
brought to me amongst others, and I immediately said it was
yours—but pray rescue it from its mangled state and print it again
as it was written. I flatter myself that you intend to send me the
“Example of France: A Warning to Britain,” for which, I assure
you, I am very impatient.
‘I write from Lord Abercorn’s, and wish I could hear anything, but
upon every subject there is at this moment an awful pause. It is
hoped that the Alien Bill may be passed to-morrow, it is so much
wanted, and that the wretched state of the French armies and their
dissentions at home may make it unnecessary for us to declare war.
Three Prussian officers of rank have been arrested for treasonable
correspondence with Dumouriez, which, they say, is to explain the
Duke of Brunswick’s retreat; and now it is supposed that Custine’s
army cannot escape him.
‘I saw two gentlemen who were in Paris a fortnight ago, and who
told me that the treasury would hold out very little longer, that
bread was scarce, commerce destroyed, and the people either in
fury or despair, the whole town affording a melancholy scene of
poverty, distrust and disorder—houses shut up, public buildings
destroyed, churches turned into warehouses, &c. &c.
‘For want of better materials I send you a print which I think is
not a bad one, considering the double part Mr. Fox has acted. I
thank you for enquiring after my daughters. Lady Erne is not yet
returned from Hampshire, Lady Elizabeth is with the Duchess of
Devonshire at Florence, and Lady Louisa is here, and desires her
compliments.
‘I am, sincerely yours,
‘E. BRISTOL.’
_From the same_
‘Bruton Street: March 20, 1793.
‘Dear Sir,—I have just seen in the _True Briton_ of this morning
that the thanks of the association at the “Crown and Anchor” were
voted to you for your last publication, which, I assure you, gives
me great pleasure; at the same time it reminds me that I have too
long deferred mine, but which I now beg you will accept. I like it
very much, and think it is admirably well written, and calculated
to inform the ignorant and deluded of their real danger. I should
have told you so long ago, but waited to hear the opinions of
those from which I thought you would receive more satisfaction;
and I can now assure you that your pamphlet is much liked by Lord
Orford and several others of good judgment. And I think you may,
without flattery, consider yourself as one of the means which has
rescued this glorious country from the destruction which was
preparing for it.
‘There are great events impending just now. I pray God to direct
them for our good.
‘I am, dear sir,
‘Your sincere humble servant,
‘E. BRISTOL.’
From Lord Bristol (Bishop of Derry), objections to my proposal for
selling all lambs at Harrington Fair.
‘Ratisbon: Jan. 17, 1793.
‘My dear Arthur,—Why will you make me a request with which I
cannot in prudence comply? And why must I say _No_ to a man whom I
wish only to answer with _Yes_? You are as great a quack in
farming as I once was in politics, and therefore, knowing the
force of the term, I must be on my guard against you.
‘_No_ reform, dear Arthur, at this time of day. Ipswich has an old
prescriptive right to our lambs—we have sold them well at that
market; buyers are accustomed to it; have their connections there
of every kind; may very possibly not come to Horningheath for many
years. Let the buyers advertise that they wish to change the
market, and I, though a great heretic against most establishments,
will be none against them. Adieu! magnanimous Arthur. Reserve your
prowess for a greater object than distressing poor Ipswich by
bereaving it of its ancient patrimony.
‘We have a sheep fair here, too, at Ratisbon, but of old horned
rams, and not of young Suffolk lambs.
‘Yours cordially,
‘BRISTOL.’
From Thomas Law, Esq., who resided long in Bengal, on the
application of the Corn Laws.
‘Weymouth Street: Jan. 5, 1793.
‘Sir,—I have fortunately obtained the perusal of your “Travels,”
and the sentiments conveyed therein so totally coincide with my
observations of eighteen years upon the extensive continent of
Asia, that, upon your arrival in town, I shall be happy to convey
to you any information in my power respecting the agriculture of
Bengal, Behar, and Benares.
‘When a member of a grain committee during a drought, I pursued
your system, which coincides with that of Adam Smith, viz.: All
our object was to prevent impediments to the free transport of
corn, being convinced that it would be removed from an abundant
province to one which was less productive, and, like water, find
its level, and that the interest of merchants would convey it from
cheap places to dear ones, and thus promote the general good. I
could impart to you many fatal instances of the intervention of
powers by fixing the price and by forcing corn to market.
‘I can show you the thanks of a resident who presided in the
capital of an extensive district threatened with a famine, and who
wrote to me asking my opinion upon the following propositions:
First, “Shall I raise subscriptions to supply the poor with rice
at this crisis?” _Answer_, “You will thereby not only encourage a
concourse to your city of persons whose expectations will be
deceived, as their numbers will exceed the amount of your
gratuities, and you will thereby destroy many; but you will
enhance the price in the city.” Secondly, “Shall I compel the
granaries to be opened, and fix a moderate price?” _Answer_, “By
no means. You will thereby deter the merchants from bringing grain
to market, and will thereby starve your inhabitants. Your power
can only extend to a certain limit, and within that the merchant
will not enter. If supplies are coming to you, those who have
grain for sale will have advice of it, and hurry their grain to
market; but if you compel them, you will stop all imports by such
forcible interference. Have you calculated at what price the
merchant buys at a distance, at what expense he brings it, &c.? In
short, you have the choice of the alternative—whether for a day or
two you will submit to want, and then be relieved by the exertions
of those who always hasten to a good market; or whether you will
gain popularity for a day or two by a compulsory expenditure of
the quantity within your grasp, and then fall a martyr to an
exasperated starving people.” He adopted the first, and thanked me
in the strongest terms.
‘About that time, when Government intended to purchase grain to
supply certain places, I protested against it, because those
places would entirely rely upon Government management; for no
merchant would convey to places where Government by a sudden
import might overflow the market—if London were to be supplied
with every want by a contract or monopoly, the effect is easily
foreseen.
‘In respect to a fixed land tax, I can show you some very
satisfactory papers upon the subject; as I had to contend against
some very able advocates for periodical equalisation, and at
length have obtained a fixed land tax for ever. In Asia we have
metayers, as in France; we have surveyors of the crop. In short,
to a gentleman of your philosophic and agricultural turn I may
prove a welcome referee. To the many pertinent questions you will
put, you will, no doubt, find many deficient replies, for I am
conscious of having omitted much. Unluckily I had never seen your
able productions, and had too often to find the truth by the
experience of error.
‘Many serious evils may be prevented if a person of your influence
could have conveyed to Asia your sentiments upon _taxation_, _the
corn_, _trade_, &c., for the perusal of the several servants
entrusted with the charge of vast districts with numerous
industrious subjects. If Necker committed such palpable mistakes
after so much experience, must not young men in the company’s
service be subject to fatal errors where the instruction of books
is not always to be attained, or the advice of the well-informed,
as in Europe?
‘I remain, with respect, sir,
‘Your most obedient humble servant,
‘THOMAS LAW.’
From the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, highly praising the ‘Example of
France’:—
Mr. Burke thanks Mr. Young for his most able, useful and
reasonable pamphlet. He has not seen anything written in this
controversy which stands better bottomed upon practical principle,
or is more likely to produce an effect on the popular mind. It is,
indeed, incomparably well done. We are all very much obliged to
Mr. Young, and think the Committee ought to circulate his book.
‘Duke Street, St. James’s: March 5, 1793.’
From Dr. Burney, on my ‘Example of France,’ &c.:—
‘Chelsea College: May 12, 1793.
‘My dear Friend,—I cannot let Mrs. Young return without sending
you my best thanks for the second edition of your excellent
pamphlet. Indeed, if I were singular in approbation of it, you
might think me a cleverer fellow than I shall seem among the crowd
of your admirers. What is a single name in a list fifty yards
long? And if I were to tell you what numbers of first-rate judges
have spoke well of your performance, I should want more room than
Mr. Sheridan’s friends at Glasgow. I shall only just specify those
who would be at the head of a complete list, if I had time to make
one: Mr. Burke, Lord Orford, who, on my asking him if he had seen
your pamphlet, pointed to it, “There it is; I read nothing else;”
Mrs. Montagu the same; a large party of bluestockings at Lady
Hesketh’s all agreed that your book and Hannah More’s “Chip”[155]
were the best on the subject. When I made Mrs. Crewe read the
first edition, she wrote me word that she had perused it with
great attention, and that she found it contained stubborn facts,
to each of which she should say with the grave-digger, “Answer me
that and unyoke.” Last week, in a note she sent me from Hampstead,
she says: "Mr. Arthur Young’s pamphlet makes a great noise, and, I
think, I never knew any book take more; it is reprinted, you know,
with additions." In the communication of the latter information
she got the start of me; the second edition could not have been
out three days but you are meditating a third. I like your
additions to the second much, particularly what concerns the
reform of Parliament.
‘I wish you could overhaul Grey’s speech as well as Charles Fox’s
on that subject, and in an appendix expose the weakness and
inconsistence of both. Only observe how both confess that there
_was_ danger to our constitution “from opinions favourable to the
principles and measures of France,” after so stubbornly and
pertinaciously denying in Parliament the existence of any such
danger; challenging Government to prove it, and saying that “the
Proclamation, call of Parliament, Alien and Traitorous
Correspondence Bills, were mere Ministerial juggles” to increase
influence, diminish liberty, and encourage excess of loyalty.
“But,” says Mr. G. “that _danger_ must now be much lessened, as
all approbation of those principles, or imitation of that example,
is now improbable, totally discredited, and removed from all
political speculation and practice.” What, then, is all the
defence of France and Frenchmen by the Opposition? And why is
every measure condemned in Parliament that tends to put an end to
their anarchy and ambition? Why is war against them so censured?
Why is it always called the war of kings and despots? Why is the
Minister so importuned to make peace with regicides and assassins,
determined to force, if possible, every nation upon earth to adopt
their measures? Mr. Grey repeats in his speech, “All dread of the
example is completely removed, and that none could suppose him, or
any other party in this country, favourable to that example.” What
is this but open falsehood? Mr. Fox allows that “there _was_ a
party whose wild theories certainly aimed at an impracticable
perfection, that could only have been pursued by means subversive
of every part of our constitution.” Yet there never was any
danger! Mr. G. says, in express terms, “that his motion extended
to an alteration in the present government of the country.” But he
had no specific plan ready of his own, or that he chose to father.
But as all the petitions he and Mr. Sheridan brought in for a
reform _demanded_ nothing less than universal suffrage, and as
these gentlemen either drew up or approved the contents of these
petitions, we may easily judge what was the general plan of our
Jacobins, if they could have had the tinkering of the
constitution.
‘Grey seems to me a silly fellow, with a greater wish than
abilities to do mischief. Charles Fox’s speech is more a panegyric
on the constitution than on his friend’s motion. When every man is
left to himself to reform an old constitution or make a new one,
no two will be found of a mind on the subject. Sherry’s speech was
nothing to the purpose. There was no attempt of the phalanx which
I so much dreaded, as the doubling our _tiers état_. Thank God,
their great gun has flashed in the pan! The mountain has laboured
in vain. You know I hope that the gang in Parliament, like
Egalité’s creatures in the “Convention,” is called the _Mountain_.
And it has been called by a punster of the party _Mount Sigh-on_.
I fear the war will be long and bloody; and how it will end who
can tell? Nothing but a vigorous prosecution of the war can save
the whole civilised globe from destruction. After disdaining in
the House the principles which they had suggested and encouraged
out of it, I should not wonder if the Scotch and English
petitioners for reform on the basis of _universal suffrage_ should
mob and _September_ their friends the demagogues whenever they can
catch them. I don’t love mischief, but I do cordially wish
something of that kind were to happen.
‘Adieu.
‘Ever yours sincerely,
‘CHARLES BURNEY.’
From Dr. Symonds, high encomiums of my ‘Example,’ &c.
‘Prince of Wales Coffee House: April 8, 1793.
‘Traveller Coxe[156] desired me to tell you how charmed he was
with your pamphlet; nay, he had begun to write five or six lines
to you, but thought afterwards it was taking too great a liberty.
One thing, however, he wishes you to expunge in your next edition,
viz.: a reflection on Sunday schools as not being founded on
truth. You must not be surprised at this, for he is a zealous
patron of them, and has explained the Catechism in print for that
purpose. Wherever I go I hear your “Example of France” spoken of
in the highest terms as to the matter.
‘Everyone agrees that no political writer whatever has set the
representation of property in so clear and just a light. Bishop
Douglas, who has written many good pamphlets, and is therefore the
best judge, makes no scruple to declare frequently that you
deserve from Government a most ample reward; but we both wish, as
well as others, for your sake, that the second edition may be
printed more correctly.
‘You should come to town and be presented, or, at least, take an
opportunity to walk on the Terrace at Windsor, where you would not
fail of being marked out. Bishop Watson’s appendix has rendered
him _rectus in curia_. A few days ago he was at Court, talking
with Lord Dartmouth, who mentioned the word philosophy, which the
King overhearing, came to the bishop, and said, “I have read the
best sort of philosophy, my lord, in your sermon and appendix,
which has wonderfully pleased me.” The bishop, of course, made his
bow, and then the King went on, “You write so concisely and so
forcibly, that everyone must be convinced by your arguments;” on
which the bishop replied, “I like, Sir, to step forward in a
moment of danger.” The King rejoined, “You have shown a good
spirit, and it could not be done in a better manner.” Should the
last volume of "Clarendon’s Letters" come in your way, I would
advise you to read the famous one from Sir John Colepeper to
Secretary Nicholas; which is always esteemed as a wonderful
instance of political sagacity, as it foretold that the
Restoration would be accomplished by Monk! But I think there is
another part of this letter which shows equal sagacity, viz.: his
desiring that Charles would not send over any foreign troops into
England, as this measure would not fail of uniting the English
against him; whereas, if they were left to themselves, he would
always have a strong party, and must sooner or later be restored.
I am fully convinced of the truth of this reasoning; and of what
use is history unless it be considered as a school for modern
politicians?
‘Why did you not let me know whether your second edition had gone
to the press or not? Before I left Cambridge I saw a gentleman who
told me that Sir William Scott had mentioned in a letter to one of
his friends there that it was by far the most convincing and best
pamphlet that had been published.
‘All I could wish is that you had not stigmatised all reformers
with the name of enemies to the state; or, at least, you intimated
it. I was always myself an enemy to reform in Parliament, and
continue to be so; yet I know some warm advocates for it, who mean
as well to the benefit of this country as you can possibly do.
‘Dr. Hardy and Sir Henry Moncrief (a Scotch clergyman) are come to
solicit a Bill for the enlarging of the stipends of the Scotch
clergy. They do not apprehend much difficulty in carrying it
through the Houses, though the addition must be supplied out of
the tithes in the hands of lay proprietors. Hardy is Professor of
Ecclesiastical History at Edinburgh—a most sensible man, with
great liberality of mind. Sir Henry is a polished man, and
likewise a man of business. I hope to see them both at St.
Edmund’s Hill, and you must meet them. You should get Hardy’s
pamphlet, the “Patriot,” published in Scotland on the present
emergency; there are in it many excellent things.
‘You seem in your letter to be still apprehensive of some plots
and insurrections.
‘Plot! Plots! was the catch-word in King Charles II.’s time. Sir
H. Moncrief and Dr. Hardy laughed at Dundas’s account of the
political riots in Scotland. They absolutely denied the existence
of them—considered them as political; and when you read Hardy’s
pamphlet, you will see that he would not have failed setting them
forth if they had deserved any consideration.
‘Adieu! I should not have come to London had it not been on
account of my ecclesiastical foundling.
‘JOHN SYMONDS.’
_From Dr. Symonds_
‘September 1, 1793.
‘My dear Sir,—I do not wonder that you smiled at the affected
secrecy of Macpherson concerning the Censomento. The book to which
he alludes cannot be the “Bilancio dello stato,” &c., which was
written to please Count Firmian. I knew well the gentleman who
wrote it and gave it to me, as I often met him at dinner at the
count’s.
‘Sometimes he was too decisive. One day he said at the count’s
table that the Bresciano contained 800,000 inhabitants now. As
Count F. knew that I had just come from Brescia, and had not lost
my time there, he asked me what number there was; on which I told
him that there were 376,000 according to a census taken a few
years before. The count smiled, and looked very attentively on
Carpani (for that was the author’s name), who never liked me so
well after that day, nor had Count Firmian so high an opinion of
him. You possibly may not know the history of Sir John Macpherson.
He offered the Duke of Grafton, when he was at the head of the
Treasury, a vast collection of jewels, by order of the Nabob of
Arcot, which the duke absolutely refused, and Bradshaw, his
secretary, also. Sir John, thinking that the nabob would not
believe that he had offered the present, published for his own
vindication the answers of the duke and Bradshaw, for which he was
turned out of the company’s service, as he was pursuing an
interest then opposite to its interests.
‘Scotch influence not long after restored him. You will find the
letters in Lind’s appendix to the defence of Lord Pigot. You are
now, of course, so much of a politician as not to be surprised
(shall I say disgusted?) at Macpherson’s conduct. The opinion of
the King of Prussia as to your book I value not a straw; but that
of the Marshal de Castries certainly carries with it great weight.
‘He is one of the few who adhered to Necker from gratitude, when
the latter was turned out of his post about ten years ago; and I
heard a very good character of the maréchal when I was last in
France. St. Paul, as you and the duke are pleased to call him, is
finished, and the preface is on the stocks.[157]
‘Why do you wish Clarke had commented on the Epistle to the
Romans? Locke and Taylor have done it admirably; and easy as you
may think the Gospels are, they have been rendered much more so by
Clarke.
‘What do you mean by saying that the Gospels want no explanation?
St. John is extremely difficult in some parts, notwithstanding
Clarke’s paraphrase; and I think, with Markland, that he is as yet
very far from being perfectly understood. Adieu!
‘I remain,
‘Ever your sincere friend,
‘JOHN SYMONDS.’
-----
Footnote 152:
By Act of Parliament, 1793.
Footnote 153:
This recantation of Arthur Young’s former democratic utterances
was published in June 1793.
Footnote 154:
Marquis de Castries and Maréchal of France. Joined the _émigrés_
on the Revolution, and served in Condé’s army.
Footnote 155:
_Village Politics_, by Will Chip, 1793; price 2_d._
Footnote 156:
William Coxe, 1747-1828, author of _Travels into Poland, Russia,
Sweden, and Denmark_, &c. &c.
Footnote 157:
Evidently an allusion to some work of the writer.
-----