Page images
PDF
EPUB

acquainted. What shall we say when we find him telling us, that Stepney the poet was invited into public life by the Duke of Dorset? The event in question must have taken place about 1683, towards the end of Charles the Second's reign. But the creation of the dukedom of Dorset only originated under George I. 1720. In like manner he informs us that Prior published about 1706, "a volume of poems with the encomiastic character of his patron the Duke of Dorset." No doubt he meant to speak of Charles Earl of Dorset, who died nearly at that time."

We grant to Sir Nathaniel that he is certainly right. Johnson did call Stepney and Prior's patron a Duke when he was a simple Earl. And we grant him as certainly that a biographer should not be guilty of inaccuracy and neglect. It is highly disgraceful to commit "errors from an ignorance of facts, with which he might and ought to be acquainted."-" Chronological errors, as Sir Nathaniel afterwards with great justice observes, " are not to be treated as of little moment." And now let us earnestly solicit the attention of our readers to the following story, told by Sir Nathaniel, of another Duke of Dorset.

[ocr errors]

"The late Duke of Dorset told me, that being present at the ceremony of investing the present Marquess of Camden with the Garter, where the Duke assisted as a knight companion of the Order: His Majesty, who felt no little unwillingness to confer it on him, betrayed a considerable degree of ill humour in his countenance and manner. However, as he knew that it must be performed, Mr. Pitt having pertinaciously insisted on it, the king took the riband in his hand, and turning to the Duke, before the new knight approached, asked of him if he knew Lord Camden's christian name. The Duke, after inquiring, informed him that it was John Jefferies, What! what!' replied the king, John Jefferies! the first Knight of the Garter that ever was called John Jefferies.'" "Vol. I. p. 122.

[ocr errors]

Now the riband which was thus conferred on the Marquess of Camden, was vacated by the death of this very Duke of Dor set, who was present at the ceremony, assisted as a knight companion, informed the king of his successor's name, and who afterwards communicated the anecdote to Sir Nathaniel. We leave the reader to apply to him his own censure on biographers, who are guilty of inaccuracy and neglect, and who commit errors from an ignorance of facts with which they might and ought to be acquainted."

Upon the delicate subject that has brought Sir Nathaniel within the fangs of the law, we will be silent: as my Lord Ellenborough will no doubt comment upon it with more force and better effect than we are capable of doing. We will only remark, that over the death of the first Princess of Wirtemberg,

&

that

1

that deep and impenetrable veil described by Sir N. is not drawn. She was neither murdered by her husband, or by Catharine; but actually died in the castle of Lhode, as that Empress stated, of an remorrhage. Why could not the prurient curiosity of our memorialist be satisfied with this statement; and conclude that there might have been motives of prudence and propriety, that forbade a further disclosure? When the fear of giving pain or wounding delicacy, induces us to pass in silence over the secret sorrows of private families, why should we show less tenderness for those to whom something more than common respect is due, even our allegiance.--And here we dismiss the first part.

In entering on the discussion of the second part, we would remind our readers, that although we have spoken of the credulity and inaccuracy of our author, we have never impeached his fidelity, nor accused him of intentionally saying the thing that is not. Now for this reason, the materials of his second part are much superior to those of the first. For in his former volume, he has only related what he has heard and no story seems to have been too absurd for his belief. But the latter, consisting principally of what he himself witnessed in Parliament between 1780 and 1784, contains some new matter and lively anecdote. And though the veterans in public life may find many of his stories stale and tedious, yet to those who are too young to recollect the days of Lord North, we think that they will afford both information and amusement.

To his observations on what he heard and saw in Parliament, our Baronet has prefixed the characters of the principal political leaders of the day: and these we esteem by far the best part of his work. But they are unfortunately written in such a loose, prolix, wordy style, that it is impossible for us to transcribe the whole of any one of them. Will it be believed that he has diffused the character of Fox over a space of thirteen pages, after quoting and praising the following terse and spirited sketch, by the late Mr. Boothby.

"Charles," observed he, " is unquestionably a man of the first rate talents; but so deficient in judgment as never to have succeeded in any object during his whole life. He loved only three things: women, play, and politics. Yet at no period did he ever form a creditable connexion with a woman. He lost his whole fortune at the gaming table; and, with the exception of about eleven months, has always remained in opposition." Vol. ii. p. 11,

The summary of his character is thus given by Sir William. "Fox conversed in French, nearly with the same purity and facility as (that) he did in English: writing in that language not Jess correctly, nor with less elegance. A man of his high birth

and

Those

and connexions, possessing qualifications so rare, independant of his parliamentary talents, seemed to be pointed out by nature for the superintendance of the foreign department of state. persons who anticipated the fall of Lord North's administration, already imagined that they beheld Mr. Fox in that situation, for which talent and education had evidently designed him. Yet after contemplating the portrait which I have here sketched, and which, I imagine, even his greatest admirers will admit, to do him justice, it is for impartial posterity to determine, whether, on full exami nation of his merits and defects, George the Third may be consi dered as most deserving of approbation or blame, in ever having, at any period of his reign, voluntarily called Mr. Fox to his councils. If energy of mind, enlargement of views, firmness of character, amenity of manners, acquaintance with foreign courts and languages, facility in conducting business, and prodigious intel lectual powers, combining eloquence, application, as well as discernment-if these endowments are considered as forming an incontestible claim to public employment, unsustained by moral qualities or by property, we must condemn the sentence of exclusion passed upon him.

"Those persons, on the other hand, who consider all talent, however eminent, as radically defective, unless sustained by decorum, and a regard for opinion; as well as all who prefer sobriety of conduct, regularity of deportment, and the virtues of private life above, (to) any ability that Nature can bestow on man. Lastly, all who regard judgment, under the controul of strict principle, as the most indispensible requisite of a minister to whom the public honor and felicity are in some measure necessarily entrusted: such persons will probably hesitate before they decide too hastily on the degree of censure or of commendation, which the King's conduct towards Fox ought to excite in our minds.” Vol. ii. p. 26.

His account of Burke's style of oratory is very exact.

"He would be during the same evening pathetic and humourous, acrimonious and conciliating; now giving a loose to his indignation or severity, and then almost in the same breath calling to his assistance ridicule, wit, and mockery. Yet with this assemblage of endowments, which would have sufficed to form many orators, though he instructed, delighted, and astonished, he frequently fatigued, because his faculties were not controuled or chastened by a severe judgment." Vol. ii. p. 34.

It is to this that Goldsmith alludes, when he says

he went on refining,

And thought of convincing while they thought of dining." Our readers will here observe a very strong exemplification of our author's verbosity, and of his constant practice of using two words where one would answer every purpose, "delighted and astonished,"

astonished," "ridicule and mockery," "controuled or chastened," &c.

In speaking of Dunning he is not equally happy. He says of him, "that he neither delighted nor entertained his hearers, but subdued them by his powers of argumentative ratiocination." Now if "combinations of apparent dissimilarities" be a good. definition of wit, never man had it in more perfection than Dunning. His manner indeed was against him. He spoke with a hectic, asthmatic, stammering tone of voice, like a boy who had his lesson ill by heart. But such were the charms of his matter, that he who heard him speak for two hours, only lamented that he could not continue to hear him for two more. But with whatever felicity Sir N. may have touched the character of his ministers, he has by no means done justice to that of the sovereign. We do not indeed know any part of this faulty work with which we were more displeased than with his character of our virtuous but unhappy king. For although he generally deals in the language of panegyric, yet it is given in so cold and constrained a manner, that it seems rather to have been extorted by compulsion, than to have flowed from affection. He at one time so qualifies his expressions as to leave the reader at a loss to know whether his object be censure or commendation; and at another, under the appearance of panegyric conveys the severest sarcasms. The latter offence however we attribute to inadvertency. We acquit Sir Nathaniel of all intentional sarcasin. But in fact he has more than counterbalanced every paragraph enumerative of the King's virtues by quoting some galling invectives from Junius, forgetting that the last words of a sentence are best remembered by the generality of readers: and that such is the effect of prejudice and received opinions, that the words of Junius make a more lasting impression than two whole pages of the languid imbecillity of Sir Nathaniel Wraxall.

It is not however thus that the crafty Baronet has treated those in the possession of present power. It was not because he knew not how to use with effect the language of panegyric that he has withheld it from the father. He calculated it would bring better interest if bestowed on the son. It was not because he beckoned that the ear of the former was dead to praise, but because the sceptre of reward had dropped from his hands. And with indecent prematurity he speaks throughout his book of him as already defunct, who yet lives enthroned in his subjects hearts, whose very life is the palladium of our soil, and who yet effectually reigns in the memory of his virtues. We know that we are paying a more grateful and refined compliment than any contained in the pages of Sir W. Wraxall, in saying, that we are sure that there is one who will reject this unhallowed offering

with indignation who will receive with contempt the gross flattery of the man, who could think so meanly of the son as to expect that he would submit to be praised at the expence of the father.

As we were turning over the last volume for the last time, and were just about to conclude our task, we stumbled upon one more subject which we should be sorry to have forgotten; for it sets our author's credulous absurdity in a stronger light than any thing we have yet adduced. Will it be believed that he seriously asserts "that one Roberts, Mr. Pelham's private secretary, used to take his stand at the door of the House of Commons on the day of prorogation, and as the members passed to and fro, conveyed them their payment or stipend in a squeeze of the hand." It is so written in Vol. ii. p. 496. We suppose this novel mode of conveying bribes was adopted to prevent discovery, as the conspirators in "the Rovers" sing in full chorus, to prevent their being discovered. This anecdote however, he says, he had from a man of rank and high character, whom he does not name, because being still alive, he does not think himself at liberty to divulge his authority. Vastly convincing indeed!

His authority however for another story of the like kind affords a still better specimen of our Baronet's powers of belief.

"A gentleman of high professional rank and of unimpeached veracity, told me that dining at the late Earl of Besborough's, in Cavendish-square, in the year 1790, where only four persons were present, including himself, Ross. Mackay, who was one of the num ber, gave them most ample information on this subject (i. e. bribery of the H. of C.) Lord Besborough, having called for a bottle of excellent Champaigne, of which Mackay was FOND, and the conversation turning on the means of governing the House of Commons, Mackay said- that with my own hand I secured one hundred and twenty votes on that vital question to ministers: 80,000 pounds were set apart for the purpose. Forty members received of me a thousand pounds each. To eighty others I paid five hundred pounds each." Vol. ii. p. 510.

And this is the foundation on which most of his stories rest. On the authority of a dinner conversation, after the Champaigne has circulated briskly; when a man's vanity stimulates him to appear wiser than his companions, and wine has got the better of his prudence and love of strict veracity. Aware, as we ourselves are, of the incorrectness of all common conversation, we are not inclined to think well of the judgment of a man who even speaks of what he has heard in talk as matter of authority: but when such materials are passed off as fit for the authentic narrative of history,

« PreviousContinue »