Minorca, of which place he gives but a sorry account. His wife is
handsome; she did not love him when they first married, but his good
nature has conquered her dislike, and she is almost in love with him.
In most marriages a material change occurs in the course of ten years,
but she has the merit of _singularity_ in hers. Ld. Lorne is an
old favourite of mine; his good humour, cheerfulness, and ease is quite
charming. Lewis’ lines in an epilogue to _Barbarossa_, which they
acted at Inverary, are very descriptive of him:--
And Lord Lorne’s easy air, when he got in a passion,
Proved a tyrant must needs be a person of fashion.
He seemed much at home through the whole of the play;
He died in a style that was quite _dégagé_.
And his orders for murder, disclosed by their tone,
’Twas the same if he gave them or let them alone.
_14th Feb., 1800._--Bob Heathcote came for the first time. ‘A
fool and his money are soon parted.’ Most of his is squandered at the
gaming table, Newmarket, rare editions, sums lent to ----, splendid
dinners, and, in short, in every way that it can go. He is, however,
very good-natured, and not conceited--merits that cover a thousand
blemishes, and in society make up for most deficiencies.
[Sidenote: MR. KINNAIRD]
A few days back Mr. Kinnaird,[60] eldest son of Ld. Kinnaird, dined
here for the first time. Being a Scotchman and having studied in a
Scotch University, report puffs him high, of course. Tho’ it overdoes
his deserts, yet he merits some praise. He is clever and willing to
please; one cannot pity him for _shyness_, as he labours under
no embarrassment upon that score. Living in the world will set his
head right and render him useful. He is an eager politician against
Ministers.
Ld. H. is gone down to the H. of Lords, as a message from the King
to subsidise the _German_ Princes is before the House. It is
conjectured that our magnanimous ally, the Imperial Paul, is deserting
the cause he espoused so vehemently; whilst we are to continue fighting
until ‘experience and the evidence of facts’ render a peace proper with
Bonaparte. One of the finest passages in Mr. Fox’s speech was where he
took up the expression of those who gave for reason the not negotiating
immediately, that ‘we should _pause_.’ He described with energy
the calamities of war, the villages sacked, cattle destroyed, the field
of battle covered with agonised victims weltering in their blood, who,
if questioned as to the cause they were fighting in, could not answer
as in other wars, ‘ambition,’ ‘aggrandisement of territory,’ etc.,
etc. ‘No, we fight because the English Ministers are doubtful as to
the moral qualities of Bonaparte.’
Lord Carlisle is mightily disposed to vote against the Ministers, a
propensity which gives his son great alarm, as he is riveted to all the
dogmas of the Ministerial creed, the necessity of the war, faith in the
prowess of Suwarrow, the infallibility of Mr. Pitt, etc., etc.
General Fitzpatrick has published his letters to Lord Kenyon.[61]
Previous to doing so he sent them to the King, accompanied by a letter
calculated to delight him, appealing to him as the head of the school
of honour and chief among gentlemen. The motto to the publication
is very happy; it is taken from Kenyon’s own speech on the trial of
Horne Tooke in 1792: ‘Mr. Horne Tooke, I cannot sit here to hear names
calumniated and vilified, persons who are not in this case, persons
who are absent, and cannot defend themselves. A Court of Justice is no
place for calumny. You must see the impropriety of it, and it does not
become the feelings of an honourable mind.’
I heard of a great trait of Scotch nationality. At a dinner at the
Chief Baron’s,[62] where Sylvester Douglas[63] was, the news, just then
fresh, of Bonaparte’s seizure of the Governt. was mentioned, upon
which both the Scotchmen at the same moment inquired, ‘And what did
Macdonald[64] do?’
[Sidenote: THE PRINCE’S HEALTH]
The Prince of Wales is supposed to be dying: whatever his illness may
be besides, revived love for Mrs. Fitzherbert has aggravated and added
to the measure of it. Mde. de Coigny says it’s like a _rondeau_,
in which variations are made _ad libitum_, but the return is to
the first air. He had a numerous dinner last week, composed solely of
parsons; whether this was fun or fear is uncertain. If he had been in
a vein for the former, it might have been indulged, as no set of men
abhor each other with more heartfelt hatred than those pious brethren;
each is in the way of the other, like an overloaded market in Bengal of
English beauties. The other night at D. House he fell back in his chair
and pointed to have his neckcloth loosened; fortunately Farquhar was
there, and ordered proper remedies for his recovery.
The French have played a very good trick in return for our publishing
the intercepted letters. They pretend to have found hidden in the
wall of a house belonging to a Chouan chief, letters written by Pitt,
Windham, etc., to recommend the Royalists to make peace with the
Republicans at any rate, and then break it when the English succours
arrive. This may be a _real_ correspondence, but if not, _è bene
trovato_.
Menzini,[65] the satirist, was derided for his poverty by an insolent
and haughty Cardinal, who from his balcony perceived him walking,
shabbily dressed. The Cardinal expressed his contempt in the lines of
Petrarch:--
Povera e nuda vai Filosofia.
Menzini, with great quickness, replied by the next line of the poet:--
Dice la turba al vil guadagno intesa.
Caraccioli said of England, ‘Que c’était un pays où il y avoit mille
religions, et qu’une sauce.’
M. de Lauragais[66] said of it, ‘Qu’il n’y avoit rien de poli que
l’acier, point de fruits mûrs que les pommes cuites.’
_1st March, 1800._--Within these last ten or twelve days Mrs.
Beauclerk and Mrs. Smith have each added their individual contributions
to the population of the world: a little Mimi, and a still smaller boy
are the production.
[Sidenote: COMTE D’ARTOIS]
Tierney told me of a circumstance which had been conveyed to him
_from authority_. At one of the dinners given by the Comte
d’Artois to Pitt and the Cabinet Ministers, the Cte. expressed his
astonishment and indignation _to_ Pitt, that a man possessing such
principles as Mr. Tierney does, and uttering all that his turbulent
and discontented disposition gives rise to, was allowed to go about;
that such a man in a well-regulated Governt. should be confined, and
not allowed to be at large to preach politics. Pitt replied that
Mr. Tierney was a member of Parliament, a very loyal subject, and
respectable in his private character. This was said drily, and intended
as a reproof to a very ill-judged question. Nothing could show a
greater want of taste and knowledge of English customs, than to abuse
a member of Parliament to the Prime Minister of England, and tho’ I
would not detract from Mr. Pitt, yet his defence of Tierney was such
as the occasion extorted, and ought to have been made for any man in
Parliament who has not outraged the laws. Even Sir Francis Burdett is
as yet entitled to a similar justification. The Cte. d’Artois (at
present, according to the _ancien régime_, Monsieur) is a man of
slender abilities with violent passions; before the Revolution he was
weak and volatile, he is now weak and revengeful.
Bonaparte gives fresh proofs every day of his talents for governing,
both in his disposition to conciliate and resist. He has issued letters
to recall most of the emigrant nobles who have not borne arms against
their country, infants, women, and priests; he manifests a strong
determination to fight as well as he did formerly, and not allow of
anything being wrested from the nation.
There is upon record a very curious fact, that well considered might
abate the ardour of those who are disposed to fight on for the
Restoration ‘of the line of Hereditary Princes,’ as it shows that that
event would not in all probability induce France to fall back within
her ancient limits--one of the objects proposed by the restoration of
ye Bourbons. Upon the restoration of Charles II., the Spaniards applied
to the English Court for the surrender of Jamaica, upon the ground of
its being conquered by an usurper.[67] The English Ministers submitted
the question to the ablest civilians in the country, and they were
unanimous in their opinion that whatever conquest had been achieved
by the arms of G. Britain, whether under lawful or usurped authority,
_that_ acquisition, once annexed and become an integral part of
the Dominion, it was safe to maintain even by force of arms. And can
it seriously be supposed, first, that the French nation will ever
receive a Monarch forced upon them at the point of the bayonet by the
allied armies, knowing that the incentive that provokes those allies is
the partition of France? And, 2ndly, admitting the restoration were
practicable, would the Kings, whose object would be popularity, venture
to dismember their country? Why, even the unhappy emigrants, starving
and exiled, feel triumph and exultation at every victory obtained by
their countrymen.
Washington died towards the close of the year 1799. His name will
stand high in the page of history, and posterity will be apt to
outstep truth to bestow enthusiastic eulogy upon him, who has been
great from his mediocrity. Mankind delight in assigning deep designs
to very obvious facts. We shall hear of his being the first among
generals, legislators, patriots, and practical philosophers, of his
integrity, his disinterestedness in sacrificing to the public, of his
well understood ambition in preferring a _splendid obscurity_ to
elevated insignificancy; in short, what will not be said except the
truth--a plain, painstaking, plodding man, whose profession of land
surveyor taught him a smattering of mixed mathematics which became
useful when military positions were to be conceived, a mild, even
temper, that neither offended nor captivated. So much will be said,
and hitherto so little has been said, that I shall wait and hear. All
France and America mourned at his death.
Canning sent to beg we would fix a day that he might dine here. He
came, we had only Lds. G. Leveson, Boringdon, and Ly. Bess. Went off
very agreeably. He was witty upon the new Institution,[68] which is a
very bad imitation of the _Institut_ at Paris; hitherto there is
only one Professor, who is a jack-of-all-trades, as he lectures alike
upon chemistry and shipbuilding.
[Sidenote: HORNE TOOKE’S ELECTION]
When Horne Tooke harangued the electors of Westminster from the
hustings he was often put out by one of the mob closing his sentences
with a nasal ‘Amen.’ This ridiculous finale did him more mischief
than all the arguments of his adversaries to prove his incapacity, on
account of having taken Priest’s orders, and now the Bishop of London
refuses to induct him because he is a layman. He is ingenious enough, I
doubt not, to reconcile these seeming contradictions.[69]
Hare, joking with Ld. H. upon his small divisions, some of which have
been composed of Ld. King and himself only, says he ought to say, ‘Ego
et _Rex_ meus.’
Marquis de la Rivière[70] has with a degree of superabundant loyal
zeal, vexed me. At dinner here he overheard me telling Calonne the
story of the Cte. d’Artois asking Pitt why a man like Tierney was
not shut up. He straight went and asked Monsieur if it was true;
he, of course, said _no_, and contradicted it plump. This
contradiction Rivière believes implicitly, and wrote me a formal
denial of the charge. This provokes me, as I hate being made a party
in a _tracasserie_, and still more hate having named any person.
However, the thing is of no importance, because I certainly credit
Tierney’s statement in preference to Monsieur’s asseveration to the
contrary.
I was childish enough last night to go and see the new play; it was
almost my first _sortie_ from my couch, but I am not punished for
the imprudence, as I have been perfectly well all day. I found Lewis in
my box; he is the only person I give leave to enter at all times. He
was just returned from Cambridge, where he had heard Ld. Henry Petty
deliver a declamation, composed in the very best taste, full of feeling
and ingenuity.
I have been reading Le Brun’s journey to Persepolis in 1704, the ruins
of which (Persepolis) seem equal to anything of antiquity in point of
solidity, size, and extent.
In future times when this little island shall have fallen into its
natural insignificancy, by being no longer possessed of a fictitious
power founded upon commerce, distant colonies, and other artificial
sources of wealth, how puzzled will the curious antiquary be when
seeking amidst the ruins of London vestiges of its past grandeur? Acres
now covered by high, thin walls of brick, making streets _tirés à
cordon_, divided into miserable, straitened, scanty houses, will,
when decayed, crumble into a vast heap of brick-dust. No proud arch
to survive the records of history, no aqueduct to prove how much the
public was considered by ye Governt., no lofty temples, no public
works! St. Paul’s anywhere would be a grand edifice; finer as a ruin
than in its present state, disfigured with casements, whitewashed
walls, pews, etc. The bridges alone would strike the eye as fine
remains; they are magnificent. The reason of the meanness of everything
throughout England proceeds from two causes. One is the scantiness of
materials for great works, viz., stone and marble; second is, that
commerce begets independence, from whence springs selfishness and the
wish to enjoy what you acquire. Hence there is no ambition, no desire
of perpetuating by great works fame to posterity.
[Sidenote: THE HUMANITARIANS]
Hobhouse,[71] who dined here last week for the first time, is a
leading man among the Dissenters. He and Mr. Wm. Smith have written
controversial books, and he has distinguished his own sect by the
denomination of _Humanitarians_, not to be confounded with
Unitarians. Priestley, in fact, is the founder of their doctrines,
which doctrines they say are drawn from the New Testament in conformity
with the primitive practice of Christianity. They assert that most
points of faith in the Established Church proceed from the corruptions
of Christianity. Christ they believe to have been the son of Joseph
and Mary, but that he became inspired by a divine gift. They deny
the Trinity, original sin, and the soul; their paradise is composed
of material objects, not admitting the separation of soul and body.
The Bible they hold to be an historical chronicle, Moses merely a
legislator, the Prophets inspired darkly announcing Christ.
Sheridan by chance dined here on Friday, with a whole troop of
Frenchmen. I was afraid he would be annoyed, as he does not speak
French (which is the strangest thing imaginable for a man in his
situation), but he, on the contrary, was pleased with his party. The
company were ye Archevêque de Bordeaux, Calonne, Rivière, and Mr.
Lattin. He was diverted at seeing the Archevêque laugh heartily at some
sallies which might have shocked a bigot or a prude.
Crébillon Père, when upon his deathbed, sent for his son. ‘Ah! mon
fils, est-ce donc bien vrai que vous soyez un de ces philosophes à
la mode, qui veulent le bouleversement de la religion?’ He drew from
behind his pillow a crucifix, and pointing to it, ‘Vous voulez donc
détruire ce qu’il lui a tant coûté pour établir?’ This story Condorcet
used to be very fond of telling.
Lady Ann Hatton speculates upon marrying Lord Abercorn. Lady
Bessborough, who is all credulity, believes _de bonne foi_ that
this marriage will take place; even I, who am incredulous, have doubts
in his favour, provided what I am told is true, such as, that Ld.
A. has taken his daughters to visit their future mother. Beauclerk
thinks Ly. Ann dreams, and imparts the vision to Lady B. for facts.
Ld. Morpeth behaves admirably, but has wisely not given in a _contre
projet_ to the project upon the _tapis_. For a moment I thought
the marriage story with Ld. A. was a scheme to obtain a real one from
him, but _nous verrons_. Tho’ I do not particularly like Ly. Ann,
I shall be glad to see her rescued from the humiliating state she is
in; neglect, poverty, and discredit are horrid sufferances. If she
closes her career with one of the greatest matches in the kingdom, I
don’t know how young women will credit wise precepts of ‘virtue alone
is rewarded,’ etc. She is 36, her appearance is so youthful that no
one guesses her to be above 24, if so much. Her figure is light, airy,
and graceful; Hare says she has a sort of vivacity that raises your
expectations, but what she says is so flat that it damps curiosity.
Bonaparte allows of the return of the emigrants; I almost fear he
extends that indulgence too far. Once restored to their possessions
they will long for their titles, and a King will be the fountain of
honour. The Duc de Liancourt has obtained all his estates which were
not sold, and those of the Duc de la Rochefoucauld; this makes him
among the number of the richest individuals in Europe.[72]
[Sidenote: TALLEYRAND’S SARCASMS]
A very profligate man, who was an agent of the Duc de Richelieu in all
his vicious debaucheries, said in a company one day where Talleyrand
(L’Évêque d’Autun) was, how much he was injured by the calumnies
propagated against him, ‘Et vraiment je n’ai jamais fait qu’une
méchanceté de ma vie.’ Talleyrand, with calm indifference, replied, ‘Et
quand finira-t-elle?’ I rather think the man’s name was Rulhière.[73]
Talleyrand is remarkable for his cold sarcasms. When M. de Narbonne
was Minister at War, Mde. de Staël was his protecting mistress, she
guided everything; and one day at a Council of War, at which, very
improperly, she was present, each Minister gave their opinion upon the
different projects proposed for the plan of attack by some generals.
She delivered, among the rest, hers with great warmth and decision;
when she had finished she turned to Talleyrand, and said, ‘Why, you do
not say a word! What do you think?’ He coldly replied, ‘C’est que je
ne m’y entends nullement dans les affaires militaires.’ This bitter
reproof vexed her to a degree of passion that she burst into tears; she
merited the chastisement, for ‘qu’avait-elle à faire dans ce galère-là?’
An excellent pamphlet, called _Observations upon the Preface to
the intercepted correspondence_, contains some witty and severe
strictures upon Canning’s highly absurd arguments contained in said
preface. It has been imputed to Grey, Lds. Wycombe, Holland, and to
Tierney. Ld. H. admired it so much that his uncle Fitzpatrick said he
could not resist telling him it was his, but it is a profound secret.
Mr. Fox is employed in writing the history of some late period in the
British annals, but whether King William’s reign or Charles II., I am
not certain, but I rather believe the latter.[74] I sent him by his
desire some books upon the subject, Ld. Grey’s narrative of the Rye
House Plot, Baxter’s _Life_ of himself, and I have proposed to him
various other miscellaneous tracts. A philosophical history from such
a pen will be beyond praise, but I much fear his habitual indolence
will interfere too much to allow a shadow of hope that he will finish a
section even.
Ld. H. has a quality in common with him that is very serviceable in
many ways--a great enduring patience in listening to the arguments of
any fool, however great, and of always doing his best to answer them;
of never allowing himself to feel, ‘Why exert myself for this fellow?’
Fox says he always likes to hear the opinion of a fool, as he gets by
it two opinions, that of the person who gave him the opinion, and his
own as he adopts it.
General Smith lost a great deal of money at Brookes’; to dissipate
his chagrin he walked about the room, and at length joined in a
conversation upon religion. ‘For my part,’ said he, ‘I cannot
understand what they mean with their _Trinity_ and _Holy
Ghost_.’ ‘I wonder at that,’ replied General Fitzpatrick, ‘as the
symbol is a pigeon.’
[Sidenote: GENERAL FITZPATRICK]
The General is less remarkable for brilliant repartees than Hare, but
all he says shows a profound knowledge of the world, life, manners,
and character; his observations are mostly just and expressed in the
best and purest language, adorned with an undescribable good taste. His
conversation and writings remind me of Addison. Leave out the morality
and piety, and the two characters are the same: mild, gentlemanlike,
and each possessing chaste humour. The General is by far the better
poet of the two. I am told that my taste is corrupted by that which
prevails, but I think energy of expression is oftentimes wanting in
both of the above styles.
North,[75] the Bishop of Winchester’s son, Ld. H.’s old friend, brought
his wife to dine here some days ago. She is pretty rather, but looks
sour-tempered.
Bread is 17 pence the quartern loaf, coals six guineas the chaldron,
turkeys 16 shillings, capons 8s. 6d., meat dearer than usual. During
this scarcity, be it natural or artificial, we adopt the regulations
of the H. of Lords; each person in the family is limited to a quartern
loaf per week, no pastry, no fine bread for breakfast.
_19th March, 1800._--A satirical poem called _The Campaign_
is just published; it abuses the Duke of York and the Dutch Expedition.
It is imputed to Mr. Courtenay,[76] an old member of Opposition, a
man of great coarseness, but some wit. In the House of Commons some
supporter of Mr. Pitt’s Administration complimented him on having
conducted the machine of Government with such success, in spite of the
_drag chain_ of Opposition. Mr. Courtenay, in his reply, remarked
upon the beauty and correctness of ye metaphor, since the machine was
confessedly going downhill.
_22nd March._--Erskine and Mr. Lattin (and a foolish, handsome
Irishman, Mr. Henry) dined, and were extremely entertaining yesterday.
Erskine, I have always found hitherto far from agreeable, but yesterday
was an exception. He talked strangely upon religion; he pretends to
Christianity, but the Mother Church would not take him into her bosom.
Bishops and churches, he declares, have destroyed true religion;
had he the power of Christ he would drive the _doctors_ out
of the _Temple_ as he did, and out of Lincoln’s Inn besides.
The Church Establishment he maintains to be the total ruin of the
simple, primitive worship. The Trinity he explains with ingenuity,
and reprobates the Incomprehensible Mystery of three separate and
individual persons.
The little Monk Lewis has behaved like a great fool, and made himself
highly ridiculous. He sent to the Duke of Somerset and desired he would
_wait upon him_ the next day at 1 o’clock. The Duke obeyed the
summons, and _did wait_ upon him. ‘I understand, D. of Somerset,
that you have exposed me to the contempt of being again blackballed by
the New Club. I think the part you have acted by so doing unbecoming
the character of a friend; thus I desire our acquaintance may drop
here.’ He rung the bell, and bid the servant open the door for the D.,
and thus dismissed him. The D. of S. is remarkably good-natured, and
most certainly did what he thought Lewis would like, but, poor little
man, he is very irritable and quarrelsome, and will shortly be left not
only friendless, but without many acquaintances.
[Sidenote: THE ROYAL INSTITUTION]
This Institution[77] of Rumford’s furnishes ridiculous stories. The
other day they tried the effect of the gas, so poetically described
by Beddoes; it exhilarates the spirits, distends the vessels, and,
in short, gives life to the whole machine. The first subject was a
corpulent, middle-aged gentleman, who, after inhaling a sufficient
dose, was requested to describe to the company his sensations; ‘Why,
I only feel stupid.’ This intelligence was received amidst a burst
of applause, most probably not for the novelty of the information.
Sir Coxe Hippisley was the next who submitted to the operation, but
the _effect_ upon him was so _animating_ that the ladies
tittered, held up their hands, and declared themselves satisfied. The
experiment to remove the popular prejudice in favour of silver teapots
failed, as the thermometer gave the lie to the Professor’s learned
dissertations, but it must have been from the malice of his evil
genius, for the fact is in his favour.