(Vol. v., pp. 426. 447.)
Your two correspondents C. E. D. (p. 426.) and C. (p. 447.) appear to have
read MR. HEPWORTH DIXON'S Query about Algernon Sydney either very hastily
or very carelessly. Yet it seems to me plain enough. There is not one word
in it about Barillon or Dalrymple; no inquiry about the home life of
Sydney. As every one knows a great part of his time was spent abroad, it is
probable MR. DIXON thinks that anecdotes and allusions to so conspicuous a
person may occur in the cotemporary letters and memoirs of France, Germany,
Italy, &c., and he asks for references to any such anecdotes or allusions
as may have fallen in the way of readers of "N. & Q." Surely this is
explicit. But what has Dalrymple or Mr. Croker to say in answer to a
question about Sydney's way of life when abroad? That, as I take it, was
the point, and a general discussion as to the character of the author of
the _Discourses on Government_ is _à-propos_ of nothing. As the subject has
been opened, and as I know of none more interesting in the whole range of
English history, I cannot refrain from at least entering one protest
against C.'s description of the "illustrious patriot" as a "corrupt traitor
of the worst class."
That MR. DIXON is not single in his admiration of the character of Sydney I
could quote many "instances," from our late prime minister downwards. But
the title "illustrious" can scarcely be denied to a man who, besides being
of the best blood in England, played a leading part in the Revolution, and
was one of the closest thinkers and most masculine writers our language has
to show. What makes a man illustrious? Birth, commanding position,
intellect, learning, literary genius? Sydney had them all. But C. thinks
{517} he ought not to be called a patriot. What, do his wisdom and
moderation in the civil war; his opposition to the extreme measures of
Cromwell; his long solitary exile; his glorious death, count for nothing?
There is, however, the charge of taking money from the King of France. No
doubt this is a very "curious case," and I too shall be anxious to see
"what light MR. DIXON may be able to throw on it." The accusation rests on
the sole authority of Dalrymple; and Dalrymple is _not_ a man who can be
taken on his mere word. He was a violent partisan. He hated the Whigs, and
is convicted of having suppressed the truth, when it suited his party or
his passions to misrepresent. The Barillon Correspondence should be again
examined, and, if possible, further particulars of the money payments to
our party leaders obtained.