John Whishart: The Pope of Holland House

Edgeworth’s Town,
June 27, 1815.

My dear Sir,—At last, after many provoking delays occasioned by Dublin custom-house officers and Dublin booksellers, we have obtained possession of the work you did me the honour and the favour to send us. We have read it with peculiar pleasure, not only from the real merit and interest of the book, but from its coming at a time when we were most certain to feel the full value of literary instruction and entertainment. My father has had an illness which has now lasted many months, but which has never diminished the activity and energy of his mind. Reading, or rather being read to, has been his great resource and solace. You may judge, then, how much his family have felt obliged to the author of the Life of Mungo Park for a work which opens so many new views to an inventive mind, at the same time that it gives so
104
Letter of Maria Edgeworth
much pleasure to literary taste, as a remarkably judicious composition, free from superfluity either of ornament or detail.

As writers on education, and as persons who are anxious for the improvement of the education of the people of Ireland, we felt an additional interest in that part of the Life of Park in which you speak with such forcible eloquence of the advantages that have resulted from the superiority of education among the lower ranks of the people in Scotland.

My father last night employed one of my sisters to make an extract from that invaluable note of yours on this subject, and he will have it inserted in an excellent paper which has lately been published in this country, for the special use of the people, The Irish Farmers Journal and Weekly Intelligencer. We could not venture to make so copious an extract as we could have wished, or to state some of the strongest facts, lest our extract should have proved too strongly bitter and utterly unpalatable to those for whom it was intended.

Do you, my dear Sir, in things of lesser importance admit of such sacrifices of the right to the expedient? In matters of importance I see you are inexorable. Have you not been rather too severe upon Park for his truism about the Slave Trade? First you decide that “his silence must more than his speeches offend,” and then you take exception at the first and only words the poor man says, by inferring that more is meant than meets the ear. You convert a harmless, perhaps a cowardly, but by your own statement a powerless, truism into a dangerous innuendo.

105

Letter of Maria Edgeworth

(Miss Edgeworth discusses at great length the question as to whether Park’s account of his travels was written by himself, or whether he had been helped by others.)

As to the general question whether an author of voyages and travels ought to accept of assistance from a professional writer in preparing his work for the public, you have with perfect liberality allowed that this is countenanced by the practice of many of our most celebrated navigators and travellers, and justified in some instances by the necessity of the case. But I perfectly agree with you in opinion that, wherever the traveller can, he ought for his own sake, and for the satisfaction and advantage of the public, to state his facts and deliver his tale, varnished or unvarnished, after his own fashion. Of this Mr. Park himself is a striking proof, and you have put it in the power of the public to see and judge of this proof. You have judiciously published, without correction, alteration, or embellishment, Park’s last Journal; and every one accustomed to literature and to see literary manufacture can, from these imperfect notes and hints, judge how capable Park was of writing for himself, and how much more interesting he might have made his travels by his own style, simple and unadorned, than by borrowing the pen of a practised writer, who would give flourishes and rhetoric, but could not give the stamp of truth, that inimitable stamp which happily defies all counterfeit, and is of more value even for its power to interest than the famous cachet of Voltaire or of any other writer in this world of writers.

There are many facts in Park’s Journal, curious in
106
Letter of Maria Edgeworth
themselves, and still more interesting in opening new views and affording a scent of new discoveries. The barbarism and civilisation existing at one and the same time among these Africans, their gold washing and their gold and iron smelting, and their gunpowder making, and their elegant mud mosques, and their famous Timbuctoo, and their kings’ sons stealing great-coats and their kings delighting in the shrieks of the criminals they have executed, form altogether a new combination, a new picture for the historian; and for the natural historian, geologist, mineralogist, and chemist, there is surely much to hope from “kingdoms they have yet to subdue” in Africa.

The geologist must not make up decisively his system of the world till he learns more of this new world. The chemist will be eager to have the analysing of the rust of gold, and if there be an alchemist left in the world he must look for the philosopher’s stone in the golden sand of Africa, and must take your pretty little black washerwomen to assist in the projection.

Will you be so good as to tell me by whom that print and the other very neat woodcuts in your book were executed? and say whether we should have any chance of engaging the artist at any moderate price to execute some vignettes for children’s books?

. . . . .

When we began to read Park’s travels I thought I could not feel such interest in the course of the Niger, Zad, or Congo; but by degrees I caught the general enthusiasm, and this whole family are now as mad as you or Park could have wished on this subject, and
107
Letter of Maria Edgeworth
as vehement in the discussion of the several reasons on Park’s and Rennell’s1 side of the question. At all events, I am glad the father of history is upon this occasion proved not to have been the father of lies, and that the Niger was seen by Park to flow, as Herodotus described it hundreds of years ago, from west to east.

I am glad that the old lake is there, and very sorry Park, when so near Sillee as that, could not reach it, but was forced to turn back like the prince in the Arabian tales, who was in sight of the golden water and the singing tree when forced to turn back. As to this grand question of the Niger, upon collecting votes we find that this whole family are for Mr. Park’s opinion, and think it is the Zad and the Congo. But, like Irish arbitrators upon a reference, we incline to split the difference, and we would decide, for Major Rennell’s satisfaction, that the Niger should empty itself into the lake nobody knows where. But then, why should it be lost there? Why should it not flow through said lake (as, if precedent be required, the Rhone flows through the Lake of Geneva)? Why should not the Niger pursue its course, changing its name to Zad, or Congo or Zaire, as it pleaseth, till it pours through its terrible mouth into the sea?

Is that mouth so terrible? Is the navigation of the Zaire from the western coast so dangerous as to be quite impracticable? This is a question on which another of great importance depends, for if it were practicable, would it not be wise to try to pursue the course of the Congo till it be proved from where that
1 Major Rennell, F.G.S.

108
Letter of Maria Edgeworth
river rises, and whether it joins the lake or the Niger? This and some other points relative to a new expedition to Africa have been eagerly discussed by my father and brother since we have been reading your work. My father, however, claims the pleasure of giving you his own thoughts, and he who has always been so good as to undertake for me all the business part of our literary partnership will answer your note about Murray the bookseller, which Lady Romilly communicated to us. Accept, dear Sir, my thanks for the obliging interest you show in our concerns, and believe me,

Gratefully and sincerely your obedt. servant,

Maria Edgeworth.

My father has been confined to his bed with rheumatism and bilious sickness, till late this evening, is so indifferent that he cannot write for himself, and he desires me to hold the pen for him.

With respect to the question of the Niger, the possibility of its being evaporated from a lake which served as a reservoir for its waters must depend on the size of that lake, and with this we are unacquainted. However, as we know of no such method of disposing of the waters of a mighty river in any other part of the world, we are upon this point in a field of unbounded conjecture.

The possibility of traversing a hostile country in balloons is not hopeless. I know the means of conducting a balloon in perfectly calm weather. Whether such a calm can be found in any habitable regions of the air is yet to be determined. What periodical winds may reign over the sandy deserts of Africa
109
Letter of R. L. Edgeworth
is also a question yet to be answered. In the proper season an aerial voyage over the whole tract which Park traversed might be passed in a very few days. The voyagers might alight in the desert in safety, and their celestial descent among the savages in a populous part of the country would ensure them not only safety but adoration.—Sed referre gradum! Nothing is so disgraceful to the scientific history of the present age as the mere mercenary use that has been made of balloons. Montgolfier, whom I knew at Paris, deplored the unworthy use that had been made of his invention.

With respect to Mr Murray, the bookseller, I return you my acknowledgments for the interest you take in our literary adventures. The partnership that subsisted between the nephew of the late excellent Joseph Johnson has been dissolved, but the business is still carried on at the same house by Mr. R. Hunter, one of Johnson’s nephews, who retains the copyright of our works. The gentleman to whom, after the death of Mr. Johnson, we were attached, was another nephew of his, Mr. Miles, who has quitted business. We have had no business with Mr. Hunter, to whom we are in no way bound. If we find him different from what Johnson’s nephew ought to be, we shall attend to your recommendation. Johnson had promised my daughter a certain price for the three first volumes of “Fashionable Tales.” On the day he died, Johnson, finding himself ill, desired his nephew Miles, who was alone with him, to give Miss E. credit in his books for double the sum which he had promised. Of this, Miles was so impatient to inform us, that he wrote by post to us that very night after his uncle’s death.

Without any stipulation he gave two thousand guineas for “Patronage.” This, undoubtedly, must have been done by the consent of his partner, Mr. Hunter; but we take it for granted that Mr. M. was the person who arranged the business. . . .

I am, dear Sir, with great regard,
Your obedt. servant,

Rich. Lovell Edgeworth.

From Mr. Whishaw to Mr. Smith.

Aug. 10, 1815.

I promised to write something about politics. All accounts agree as to the very disturbed state of France, and the difficulty of establishing the Bourbons. That which now takes place is only a continuation of the error committed by the Allies last year, in which it is melancholy to think that Great Britain took the lead, namely, the restoration of Louis XVIII., without considering whether he was sufficiently supported by public opinion, or had sufficient virtue or talents to enable him to regain the confidence which the family had lost. Whatever may be the crimes of France, or however desirable it may be that there should be a settled and moderate Government in that country, one cannot possibly wish success to this great violation of the great principle of national independence.

It will probably bring with it its own punishment. The Allies are certainly in a very embarrassing state; for they cannot continue to hold France as a conquered
111
The Duke of Wellington
country very long, and every hour of their stay adds to the difficulties of Louis XVIII., and diminishes his chances of ultimate success. All letters from Paris state that the English are universally popular as contrasted with the Prussians, who are much disliked both by foes and friends; their conduct has given great disgust even to the rest of the Allies. They are very insolent and pay for nothing; whilst the English, who pay for everything, are at the same time very civil to their hosts.

Blucher, who has established himself at St. Cloud, conducts himself like a captain of freebooters, and in some cases has encouraged his soldiers to new excesses, both by precept and example. The Duke of Wellington, who has interfered very honourably in some cases, is for the most part a calm spectator, and appears to take little real interest in what is passing. He is thus described in a letter from Paris, which I have just seen:—

“Le Duc de Wellington, ce héros froid et mediocre, que la nature a crée pour prouver que la science militaire peut exister sans autres talens, et l’intégrité pecuniaire sans autres vertus.” Notwithstanding the epigrammatic turn of this sentence, I believe it on the whole to be a pretty fair representation.

Aug. 16, 1815.

You will rejoice to hear that Louis XVIII. has consented, though with some unwillingness, to the total abolition of the Slave Trade. For this we are unquestionably indebted to the return of Buonaparte, who has lately been heard to say that he was satisfied
112
Napoleon
from accurate inquiry that the trade was in no way beneficial to France, being carried on with British capital. It is certainly a great triumph. The only two countries where this traffic has not now been abolished are Spain and Portugal.

The treatment of Buonaparte, which has the appearance of being in some respects harsh and rigorous, has produced a good deal of sympathy in his favour; much of the conversation which you have read in the papers is given with tolerable exactness; though several of the questions are rude and offensive, when Napoleon’s situation is considered. These were chiefly put to him by Lord Lowther and Mr. Lyttleton, member for Worcestershire, but principally the latter. Almost every one who has come into contact with Napoleon has been fascinated by his manners and deportment. No one more so than Captain Maitland, of the Bellerophon, who writes to his friends, that he never met with a man more agreeable and engaging, and few so well informed. Sir Henry Bunbury, who communicated to him the resolution of the Cabinet, states that he received the intelligence with the utmost composure; after which he addressed Lord Keith in a speech of some length, remonstrating against the hardship of the decision with great ability, and in a strain of feeling and eloquence. The impression which he made on them was, upon the whole, very favourable. The parting scene with Savary, Lallemand, and the Polish officers was very affecting; and several of those present shed tears. He talked much with Lyttleton respecting Whitbread and the cause of his death, and asked whether Ponsonby would succeed him as leader
113
The Allies
of the Opposition. He desired him to describe the peculiar eloquence of Lord Grey.

For my own part I must confess that my heart is a good deal hardened against this deserter of the cause of freedom, and profligate and inveterate warrior. But I entirely disapprove of all unnecessary harshness, such as keeping his friends from him, and taking away 4,000 gold napoleons, lest he should attempt to bribe the soldiers.

Weymouth, Aug. 31, 1815.

You ask me for politics, but I have very little to say. What is now taking place at Paris affords the best justification of those who condemned the renewal of the war, on the grounds both of justice and sound policy. After the astonishing and unexpected success of the Duke of Wellington, the situation of the Allies is difficult and embarrassing in the extreme. They have not only violated their engagements, but have probably committed a fatal error (with reference to the general peace and settlement of Europe) in placing upon the throne of France a man who has no army, no public opinion in his favour, no talents for government, and who must be supported by foreign arms. It seems impossible that such a state of things should be of long continuance; and it is very desirable for the sake of example that such unprincipled conduct should be punished. I was very much pleased the other day by hearing, in a large party in Holland House, a very eloquent tirade against the “Corporation of Sovereigns combined against the rights of independent nations” from Sheridan, who displayed upon
114
Napoleon
this occasion a spirit of vigour which reminded me of old times. He concluded, unfortunately, by talking and drinking himself into a state of intoxication, which put a speedy end to the illusion.

I forget if I told you that Abercromby, when at Paris, saw many appearances, as he thought, of a strong and deep feeling of the humiliation inflicted on them by the Sovereigns of Europe. He saw some excellent individuals, and was particularly pleased with Lafayette, who seems to be a virtuous and excellent man, still ardent for liberty, but wholly unfitted by the simplicity of his character for those arduous transactions in which he has borne so distinguished but so unfortunate a part. Abercromby says it is the general opinion that the Liberal party acted a most unwise part in not trusting Napoleon under the circumstances in which the nation was placed, with the supreme power; and their folly in supposing that the abdication of Napoleon would cause the Allies to stop in their career, is an act of credulity to which history affords no parallel.

With respect to the treatment of Napoleon, I think that those among his friends who wished it should have been suffered to accompany him; but I do not object to St. Helena as the place of his confinement. One laments the necessity of condemning a man of great powers to a state of banishment, which to him must be very little superior to solitary imprisonment; but some strong measure of the sort appears to be indispensable; and it is a characteristic and appropriate punishment for a man whose military exploits have been the constant subject of anxiety and alarm in Europe for the
115
Duke of Wellington
last twenty years, that he should be consigned for the rest of his life to a state of hopeless obscurity. Observe that my hatred of him is not founded on his real or supposed crimes so much talked of in the Times and Quarterly Review, but upon his constant hostility to the principles of liberty to which he owed all his success, and upon that restless activity and insatiable ambition which has been the principal cause of the dreadful wars of the last twenty years, and of the present convulsed state of Europe.

Oct. 17, 1815.

London is very empty, and I have seen very few people; but I am going to Holland House for a few days to-morrow, and shall then be in the way of hearing what is going on. There are evidently great complaints of the Duke of Wellington for his conduct respecting the pictures and statues, in the removal of which he contrived to take the principal share without any necessity or any advantage to the British nation. He is the object of eternal lampoons and placards, and has rendered himself and the English thoroughly unpopular in Paris. Caldwell,1 who was there at the time, says that nothing could be more striking than the complete change of opinion and manner towards the English, which the proceedings at the Louvre occasioned. In the principal part of the transactions our countrymen were very conspicuous; and the English engineers assisted the Austrians in
1 George Caldwell, of Jesus College, Cambridge, graduated B.A. 1795, being tenth wrangler, and senior Chancellor’s medallist. He took orders, and was for many years fellow and tutor of his college.

116
Duke of Wellington
the removal of the great horses from the Tuilleries. It was very right that the works of art should be restored to their proper owners; but this should have been done by a formal declaration of the Sovereigns, or rather, by distinct treaty; and it should have been done in the first instance, instead of being, as it now appears, an act of arbitrary and capricious violence. The Duke’s letter makes out a very indifferent case; where there is a positive treaty it is idle to talk of understandings between the two Sovereigns; and the lecture that he reads to the French on the folly and vanity of a spirit of conquest, considering the circumstances under which it is published, is one of the greatest insults ever offered to a nation. Though much that he says is very true, the publication is equally offensive and injudicious.

The terms of the Peace (as it is called), of which the outlines are already known, will be very popular with the readers of the Times and Courier, who think that the rights of conquest cannot be pushed too far or France too much degraded. It is the most wretched termination of a great and successful contest that the world has ever seen, and the difficulties in which the new arrangement will involve us will afford the best practical comment on the impolicy of the present war, and the injustice and impropriety of interfering in the concerns of independent nations.

You know that an Ambassador is going out immediately to China. Lord Amherst, who is appointed to this service, is a particular friend of Lord and Lady Holland, and, on their suggestion, has offered the appointment of Physician to the Embassy to Dr.
117
Napoleon
Holland, who is now on the Continent, travelling with the Philips. Letters are despatched after him in every direction; and I hope he will accept the offer. It may be the means of giving the public a good book on China, whilst it furnishes him with a very sufficient pretext for putting an end to his unpleasant connection with the Princess.

Oct. 28, 1815.

Intending to pass only three days at Holland House, I have been detained most agreeably for ten days; and I have for some time hoped to give you an account of what I have seen and heard.

For the present you must be satisfied with a few anecdotes relative to Buonaparte’s voyage.

Admiral Fleming, who dined yesterday at Holland House, has had a letter from Sir George Cockburn, dated off Madeira, who says that Buonaparte has been in excellent spirits during the voyage, but that he is lethargic and incapable of reading or writing for any length of time. He sleeps fourteen out of the twenty-four hours. He has taken a great deal to playing at cards, of which he was quite ignorant when he left Plymouth, but now he has learnt several games, and plays so well that he beats everybody. Sir George had lost 130 napoleons to him the evening before, and said that if he went on he should be stripped of the whole profits of the voyage.

Buonaparte had ingratiated himself as usual with the ship’s crew during the voyage, and was universally popular. We have had several times Sir Hudson Lowe, the new Governor of St. Helena; an intelligent man and considerable military officer. He will do his
118
Holland House
duty honourably and liberally, without any unnecessary harshness. He is taking out for Buonaparte a considerable collection of books, in which are many of his own particular choice; especially some mathematical works and a complete set of the best French translations of the classics. There are many novels for Madame Bertrand.

Nov. 2, 1815.

I am happy to inform you that Scarlett1 arrived in town this morning. I sat with him an hour and he gave me a very agreeable account of his visit to Paris. He partakes in all our sentiments as to the unjustifiable and impolitic conduct of the Allies, and their prime agent the Duke of Wellington.

The Romillys also are arrived, full of the same sentiments. They were a week at Paris, and had the best means of observing and judging. From them and from others I have learnt many particulars which I hope soon to communicate to you.

Nov. 8, 1815.

It is time to say something of my late visit to Holland House, which was a curious moving scene of all nations and languages. Our parties consisted of Bessboroughs and Lord Erskine (without his star),2 Spaniards of various parties (all of them banished or proscribed), a very intelligent deputy from Buenos Ayres, Rogers and the Romillys just arrived from the Continent, and latterly the great sculptor Canova,
1 Sir James Scarlett, first Lord Abinger.
2 The insignia of the Thistle, which Lord Erskine was supposed to wear on every occasion.

119
Canova
and his brother, an Italian Abbate and savant. I must not omit Miss Fox and Miss Vernon, who were very generally of our parties and great additions to them. By far the most interesting in the group was Canova. To a very striking physiognomy he adds great simplicity of manner, an easy and natural flow of conversation, with occasional traits of gentle unobtrusive humour, great enthusiasm for the Arts, and a disposition apparently the most amiable. He gave us the characters of the late and present Popes, and related with great spirit some of his numerous conversations with Buonaparte, who condescended to talk with him in his native Venetian dialect, and treated him with the greatest kindness, though he pleaded the cause of the Pope, then in captivity, and spoke of war and conquest as the enemies of the Arts with great disrespect. The Abbate Canova is a very pleasing man, but without any marks of the sculptor’s genius. He is entirely devoted to his brother, with whom he constantly lives; and he generally reads to the artist when the latter is engaged at his work. I inquired what were their usual books, and understood that they were generally Italian poets or some of the classic authors, whom the Abbate translated as he read with occasional comments and observations. This seems to me very natural and pleasing, and Lord Holland says it is extremely illustrative of the Venetian character, which is remarkably gentle and amiable.

Canova is extremely pleased with the Elgin Marbles, which he says are alone worth a journey to England. He gives no praise to Westminster Abbey but says, “Il y a quelques beaux idées.”

120

Binda

Of our artists, Flaxman is most his favourite. I have not yet heard what he says of our architecture.

Among those whom I met at Holland House I must not forget a young Italian of the name of Binda, who has been an intimate there for a considerable time. His history is somewhat interesting. He was connected with the late Roman and Neapolitan Governments, and has been thrown out of a brilliant career of fortune by the late revolution in Italy. During his prosperity he collected a good library and some curious manuscripts and autographs. These latter he has now brought to England with the intention of disposing of them to the Museum, where there seems to be a disposition to purchase them. I have been of some little use to him in this negotiation, and his gratitude and acknowledgments are unbounded.

He became much connected at Rome last winter with the Hollands and Bedfords, both of whom invited him to England; he is very kind and amiable, and has a great deal of information. I am much disposed to improve my acquaintance with him, and shall have opportunities of doing so as he is likely to remain in England for some little time. If he travels and goes to Bath I may perhaps send him to Easton Grey.

Nov. 10.

I was interrupted the night before last, and could not resume my pen yesterday. I am now writing at a very early hour and hope to finish before breakfast. Before I go again into politics I must tell you that I
121
The Peace
dined yesterday with Warburton,1 and had a very agreeable day with him and Howard. He spoke with great praise of Easton Grey, but was very severe on your neighbours and on provincial society in general. A stranger hearing him would have supposed that he was a great admirer of the polished conversation of the Metropolis, the only difference being that he extremely dislikes the one society and entirely neglects the other. We talked a little about politics, but both he and Howard (especially the latter) seemed to fall considerably short of the proper degree of indignation against the conduct of the Allies, which is felt by yourself, Abercromby, Benyon, Horner, the Hollands, and I think also by Lord Lansdowne. The Treaty of Peace, as it is called, is said to have been signed and will arrive in London early next week. I am afraid that it will be very popular. The sentiments of many real friends of liberty are unfortunately much warped by their hatred of Buonaparte and the French nation. Of this I have observed several melancholy specimens.

Of the travellers lately returned from the Continent,
1 Henry Warburton (1784?-1858), friend of Dr. Wollaston and Ricardo, supported Brougham in founding the London University, was member of its first council in 1827. In 1826 was returned for Bridport, and made his first speech on November 30th, on foreign goods. Was re-elected in every election till 1841, when he resigned his seat on the ground that a petition would have proved gross bribery against his colleague, in which his own agent would have been implicated. He was reckoned one of Lord Althorp’s most confidential friends. His collection of minerals, including those belonging to Wollaston, was presented in 1858 to the Mineralogical Museum at Cambridge. (“Dic. Nat. Biography.”)

122
The Romillys in Paris
the account given by the Romillys is the most interesting and the strongest against the Allies. His tour, considering that he was absent for little more than two months, was very extensive, but he saw most things extremely well. They were highly delighted with Italy, but especially with Genoa, its grand marble palaces, its fine mountain situation, and the tranquil magnificence of the Mediterranean, on which they sailed several times. Throughout Lombardy and the Sardinian territory they were much struck with the great works of Buonaparte and the benefits he had conferred on the Italian dominions; most of which will now be lost by the changes which have lately taken place in those unfortunate countries. At Geneva, Romilly became much acquainted with Sismondi, whom he found an agreeable and intelligent man, although he has been very injudicious in his conduct with respect to French politics. He understood him to be possessed of many curious notes of Buonaparte’s conversations during last spring at Paris, which he will hereafter publish. At Paris, Romilly lived chiefly with Gallois,1 Lafayette, and others of the Liberal and Constitutional party, and fully confirms the account which Abercromby had given of that virtuous but feeble body of men. The last account of the causes of Napoleon’s return to Paris in March last, as it is understood by Romilly and believed by Lord Holland, appears to be the following: that intrigues and plots were forming for a change of Government, which was intended to take
1 Jean Antoine Gallois, born 1755, died 1829. Author on jurisprudence and politics.

123
Return of Napoleon
place in May following, but were very far from being matured. They seem to have determined on nothing positive and distinct beyond the deposition of Louis XVIII. His successor was somewhat uncertain, but probably would have been Napoleon II. with a Regency, as a measure likely to conciliate the Austrian Government. Buonaparte hearing of these movements, and having also good reason to believe that a proposition had been made by France at the Congress, and seconded by Spain, for removing him to St. Helena, determined on trying this, his only chance for recovering the Throne. His sudden appearance was quite unexpected by the Revolutionists, whose schemes it entirely deranged, but he was immediately espoused by the military, and in a great degree by the population at large. They found it necessary to acquiesce and do the best that they could; that is, to put him under a strict constitutional discipline. The result was, that during his short reign he was never entirely the master, and after his failure at Waterloo they easily compelled him to abdicate; weakly supposing that the Allies would be satisfied with this sacrifice and would interfere no further with the internal affairs of France. Romilly brings many striking instances of the insolence of the soldiery and the hardship suffered by the Parisians, but I have no time to enter into such details. He seems to apprehend some great explosion. No traveller of any party affects to deny that Louis “l’inévitable” (as he has been called) has any support in France except the arms of the Allies. On the other hand, the Royalists are quite as furious against these their friends and supporters as any other
124
Dr. Holland
body of men in France. Count de Bournon, a great Bourbonist and friend of Blacas, who is lately arrived, says that the cruelties of the Prussians have effaced all recollections of Buonaparte’s tyranny, and that the conduct of the Allies, and especially the Duke of Wellington, will infallibly produce a new and more widely extended war. He confidently expects that Russia will separate from the rest, on some point of internal interference and unite with France. You will probably have heard Tennant speak of Bournon, and know that his opinion is not worth much except in mineralogy; but I quote him as speaking the language of the high party at the Court of the Tuileries.

Dr. Holland has declined the offer of going to China, as interfering with his prospects of medical practice. It seems, indeed, very doubtful whether the Embassy will after all be admitted, so great is the alarm and indignation in that empire on account of our war with the Nepaulese.

I must tell you that Dr. Holland, having entirely quitted the Princess of Wales (though quite amicably), means to settle in London this winter. He is now for a short time at Cheltenham, and will probably go to Bowood. I have told him that Easton Grey will be on his way, and that you will assuredly be glad to see him. If you talked of Dr. Holland at Easton Grey at the time of receiving my former letter he would probably be criticised with some severity by Abercromby and Warburton, nor was he much liked by Tennant. His manner is certainly too courtly and “douceroux”; but he is very obliging and possesses
125
Holland House
great funds of information—qualities which, with a view to the ordinary intercourse of life, sufficiently atone for these defects.

The treaties seem to be as bad as possible, but unfortunately they are very popular. I am apprehensive of great schisms among the Whigs. I send you these lines written with a diamond on one of the windows in Holland House by Mr. Frere. The last line seems to me particularly good:—

“May neither fire destroy, nor waste impair,

Nor time consume thee till the twentieth heir,

May taste respect thee, and may fashion spare.”1

Dec. 2, 1815.

I send you an extract from a letter written by Sismondi to a friend of mine respecting the Emperor Napoleon, of whom he was formerly a great enemy, but to whom he became a sincere convert after his return in March last. His account in some respects is curious; and distinctly confirms what we have heard before of the change that has lately taken place in Buonaparte’s constitution and physical powers—in fact, a sort of premature old age.2

1 These lines were originally, it is believed, written on a pane of glass in the window of Roger’s dressing-room. Princess Marie Lichtenstein gives them in 1874 as in “the southern window of the library passage.”

2 The copy enclosed does not allude to this, perhaps some of the letter is missing.

126

Sismondi on Napoleon

Extract from a letter of Sismondi to a friend of Mr. Whishaw (probably translated by Mr. W.).

“Buonaparte no longer threatens Europe with subjugations. Speculation on his military and political views have in a great measure ceased. But the general system and the peculiarities of his moral and intellectual character are the universal topics of conversation throughout Christendom. By a strange fatality, also, it has happened that as his possession of power kept the world in constant agitation, so his existence in retreat has produced a sort of torpor in all parties in France. The fear of his return checks the Royalists, in their ill-concealed designs of disturbing the property and restoring the old abuses of their country, and the possibility of paving the way for him prevents the republicans from exerting themselves, and deadens the activity even of those who, with more moderate views, are anxious to reduce the power of the Crown within some reasonable limits. It would be difficult to form a satisfactory judgment of a man who has been at all times the object either of the basest adulation or the grossest abuse, and whom it is now not only safe and fashionable, but even profitable, to calumniate. Those who have lived by his favour, and those who have employed every art of flattery and deception to palliate his crimes, and intoxicate him with praise, are as eager to obliterate their former servility by repeating and forging anecdotes to his dishonour as those who have suffered under his tyranny are to load his memory with every species of
127
Sismondi on Napoleon
abuse without examining the foundations on which such an accusation may rest. But, though it is difficult to ascertain facts which depend on the veracity of the relater, and therefore impossible to draw his character with certainty, the results of his elevation are more obvious, and it is an easier task to infer from them how far his life has been beneficial and show how far it has been injurious to mankind in general and to the countries which he has governed for some years in particular.

“I will give you my opinion without disguise and without prejudice—that is, without reference to any opinions which I have formerly entertained or expressed.

“He was certainly no ‘monster’; that is, not a Caligula, a Nero, a Catherine de Medici, or a Marat. He was, however, in many senses a tyrant, and in all a subverter of that power to which he owed everything; a prince who combined great military talents with as great military means, indulged without scruple or moderation that odious and childish passion of conquest which has misled many absolute, and nearly all French, kings, has at all times created so much calamity in the world, and often, as in the present instance, conducted those who gave way to it through much false glory, to defeat and degradation. He had the same propensity to disturb mankind as Louis XIV., Charles XII., and other princes who have been called ‘Great’; but he had greater means than many, and more virtues than most of those princes. He was, therefore, more formidable, but not more guilty or odious. His worst qualities, viz., his hatred of
128
Sismondi on Napoleon
Liberty and love of conquest, he had in common with most kings; his means of gratifying them, especially his capacity, he had in common with but few. But as he exerted them for such detestable ends he deserved his fall; and inasmuch as his designs were hostile to the independence of many nations, and his capacity nearly equal to his undertakings, his fall must be considered as a fortunate event for the great Powers of Europe and for England in particular.

“But is it so for France, or for those countries which under him were annexed to, or dependent on, France?

“This question can only be solved by examining the good and evil of his Government, by comparing his system with that which preceded it, and, above all, by comparing the evils of his Government with those of such as have succeeded, or are likely to succeed, to him. These questions, as they effect France, would require very laborious inquiries and very long discussions. I shall only make some cursory remarks upon them.

“The evils of his system in France may be classed under three heads: the want of liberty, the waste of life, and the waste of money.

“Liberty of discussion, at least on political topics, there was none in France under him; and even of security for personal liberty there was very little. There must have existed more freedom of speech than we supposed, or than some of his predecessors would easily have endured, because there are many instances not only of bon-mots but of injurious expressions being uttered by him, and even to him by persons
129
Sismondi on Napoleon
whom he, in his turn, outrageously and scurrilously abused, but whom he left, not only at liberty, but in authority and office. It is, indeed, a remarkable circumstance, and one very discreditable to his understanding, if not to his heart, that he was at all times more disposed to insult than to injure those who had offended him. He was, however, an enemy to freedom; and, to use an affected word, must be considered as a ‘Liberticide.’ In this part of his character two things are, nevertheless, to be observed: first, that he left many forms and institutions which, though he himself dispensed with or broke through them, might have survived him; secondly, that notwithstanding his disputed title and irritable temper, fewer persons were found, at the time of his disposal, in prison for State crimes than under Louis XVI., the hereditary monarch of France and, if we can believe his panegyrists, the mildest and meekest of all royal personages.

“Was the old system, then, such as required, even in its mildest form, a larger number of unfortunate wretches to be immured in dungeons than the new one admitted of, even under a fierce and unrelenting military usurper?

“The advantages enjoyed under Buonaparte’s government are not to be exclusively ascribed to him. Many of them were due to the Revolution and Republic.

“They were:—

“1st. The complete freedom of worship and conscience.

“2nd. Speedy and impartial justice administered
130
Sismondi on Napoleon
in all civil concerns and in all criminal matters, also where political questions were not involved.

“3rd. A strict appropriation of public money to public purposes. ( N.B. Napoleon, after paying his household from a civil list of half the amount granted to Louis XVIII., with a regularity unequalled in the frugal management of a private person, saved more than a third, which he distributed to individuals of merit in the army.)

“4th. The gratification of national glory.

“5th. The magnificence of all public works, useful or ornamental.

“6th. The excellence and cheapness of the police.

“7th. The easy access to office and distinction for all persons whose talents fitted them for the discharge of public duties.

“Such were the evils and such the advantages of his government. Which of the first has the late Revolution corrected? How many of the last has it destroyed? and what new benefit has it conferred? also what fresh evils has it occasioned?

“The first of these questions must be answered in the singular number. One enormous evil is for the present removed, viz., the conscription. The relief will be complete if a long peace can be preserved, and if a war can be maintained without some mode of levying troops as oppressive and perhaps less impartial. The taxes which ‘Monsieur’ promised to repeal have been continued, and even increased. In the meantime the salaries of efficient offices, military and civil, are less punctually paid, while the number of sinecures and court attendants is increased; works of great
131
Sismondi on Napoleon
magnificence are in a great measure, and works of utility still more, neglected and abandoned.

“The price of land is falling, the security of property is very sensibly diminished, prompt obedience no longer follows the laws; much discontent prevails, and many persons have been already executed for their resistance to the newly restored authorities.

“National glory is gone. Buonaparte, perhaps, destroyed as he had created it. But no one expects the old race to revive it.

“The only new institution the king has introduced—viz., the Maison du Roi—it is said, will be confined only to such as can prove their nobility. Processions, reliques, and suppression of business on feast days have been enjoined. Whether these are benefits I do not know; but they certainly are not so considered by the public.

“So much for France. Italy and Belgium remain to be considered. For, as to Holland and Switzerland, if the first can maintain anything like independence, she must be the gainer by the late events. It is as absurd to deny that her subjugation was subversive to her happiness as to maintain that Buonaparte’s late settlement of the cantons was not beneficial to Switzerland. Napoleon not only corrected the evils of which he had been the immediate cause, under the Republic, in Switzerland, but he actually improved the condition of that country with reference to the state in which it stood previously to the Revolution war. Except in Geneva, which he annexed to France, he has no enemies in Switzerland, and he has many adherents and more admirers in the cantons.

132

Sismondi on Napoleon

“In Belgium the public opinion is decidedly hostile to him and his Government, and the people are as much delighted at his downfall as they had been lately at the expulsion of the Austrians, and formerly at the evacuation of the Spaniards. A calm calculation of their interests might lead them to another conclusion. France afforded them a permanent market for their manufactories and productions, and was powerful enough to protect them from incursions and conquests. Surrounded by independent states, they will in peace be harassed with the custom-house regulations of their neighbours, and in war are destined to become again, as they have so frequently been before, the theatre of war—the arena on which the great military powers carry on contests for glory—contests which it is the fate of Flanders to witness and to feed, but the glory of which she is no longer allowed to partake. If they belong to Austria or to Prussia they will hardly be relieved from the evils of a levy as severe as the conscription. If to the Protestant provinces of the Netherlands, they will be subjected to those to whom they feel the strongest repugnance, and in all cases they will be more exposed to the evils of war and less gratified by admission to high offices of a great empire, which, from policy or from accident, Napoleon rendered very accessible to the natives of the annexed provinces.

“Italy, in political liberty, can have lost nothing under Napoleon, for she had nothing to lose. In all that a Government not founded on liberty could bestow, she had gained prodigiously under the French domination. The conscription and the taxes were,
133
Sismondi on Napoleon
indeed, grievances, and grievances of a nature to which Italians had never been subject, and which they were therefore less prepared to endure.

“But, on the other hand, the general improvement of their agriculture, their means of communication, and their police, were benefits hitherto unknown in that country; and the security of persons and property, together with full admission of all the natives to the highest posts, both in their own country and in the empire, were advantages which they had never enjoyed, and which might be thought to compensate even for the taxes and military service required of them. Assassinations were hardly known in the kingdom of Italy and the provinces annexed to France. The administration of justice was public and impartial and in the hands of the Italians: there was a full toleration of religious opinions; the arts most congenial to the country were encouraged, not only by the rewards, but by the consideration conferred on their professors; and other arts of life were gradually introduced into the country. If the balance between good and evil had been struck under the Viceroy Beauharnais’ government, the conscription and national degradation must have been placed in one scale, security of person and property and an excellent administration of justice in the other. By the recent change they may possibly get rid of the conscription; but the degradation of their national character will not only remain, but be aggravated by those of superstition, persecution, and depression of talents. In Piedmont every man who has served the country which his sovereign lost and abandoned, for these last
134
Sismondi on Napoleon
ten years, is either banished or dismissed. The magnificent roads by which the intercourse with foreign nations was facilitated, are to be destroyed. The academies and schools are to be shut up; the improvements, even in medicine, are prohibited, and the Inquisition, which did not exist there, is to be introduced.1

“At Rome the Pope has denounced those authors of all mischiefs, the Freemasons, though I believe all the allied Sovereigns who restored him are of that foolish but innocent fraternity, and the mode by which his Holiness proposes to bring them to justice is by assigning one-half of their property to their accusers and the other to the judges who shall condemn them!

“The very lamps and pavements of Rome are denounced as impious innovations, and the old darkness and dirt are to be immediately re-established. The ancient modes of law proceedings are to be carefully restored, and all the benefits of sanctuaries and other kinds of impunity to be scrupulously extended to those worthy objects of compassion who live by depredation, and have been betrayed into the venial offences of stabbing their fellow-creatures. The roads are infested with robbers; the towns and villages abound with assassins. The taxes remain, or are increased, though not one of them is applied to objects beneficial to Italy. Sugar, coffee, and relief from conscription they have gained; justice, enterprise, security, and magnificence in public works they have lost by the change. They have still foreigners for
1 Note by Mr. Whishaw, “This is denied.”

135
Sismondi on Napoleon
their taskmasters; but the French opened to the natives a career of fortune and glory; and, though they pillaged them for purposes of war, they encouraged old and brought new arts into the country. The Austrians take their money and give them nothing in return but insolence and contempt.

“It is not wonderful that Napoleon should have many partisans among the Italians, for who can deny [that his fall] has restored with much aggravation all the evils which retarded the progress and debased the character of that highly ingenious people for two or three centuries.

“Great, however, as the calamity of his downfall will be to that country, that of his restoration would be still greater. Endless civil wars would ensue. The fears of one party and the vengeance of the other would desolate the country with persecution; but though the condition of Italy would not be bettered by an effort to recall him, it is unquestionably worse than when it had quietly submitted to his authority. The appearance of the peasantry, and of the country, has improved as much under Buonaparte in Italy as it has in France since the Revolution; and though newspapers and the Public may rail at that event, the traveller must be blind who, in passing through France, does not perceive that the division of property, the suppression of odious privileges, and the real equality of condition have improved the face of the country and the state of its inhabitants, and must ultimately have some effect in ennobling the rural intellects and the political character of the nation.

136

Dr. Holland

From Mr. Whishaw to Mr. Smith.

Dec. 22, 1815.

It is some time since I last wrote, but I have had very little to communicate. London has been very empty and society very stagnant. Lord and Lady Holland were absent for a long time at Woburn. Since their return I have been at Holland House once, and am going there again for a few days at Christmas, and afterwards to Lord King’s. No particular intelligence has been received from France by Lord Holland, except a distinct confirmation of the hardships inflicted on the Protestants in the South. It is very true, as the Courier states, that this rancour is connected with political opinions; but it is no sort of excuse for the charge of disaffection being always brought in such cases by the ruling ecclesiastical faction, and often with good reason, as they take care by their mode of treating them that the charge shall at length be true. Witness the primitive Christians and the heretics of early ages, the French Protestants during the League, and the Irish Catholics of our own times.

I am glad you were pleased with Dr. Holland, who seems also to have been successful at Bowood and with the Carnegies. The defects of his manner are very apparent, and extend in some degree to his character. They have excited a strong prejudice against him in the minds of some of our friends. I allude particularly to Abercromby and Warburton. But I can pardon these defects on the ground of his great information, and general good temper and agreeableness. I might have been more vigorous
137
Lord Holland and Duke of Wellington
some years since; but it is time for me to ask myself the question of Horace:
“Lenior et melior fis accedente senecta?”1

Somewhat of this temper is necessary in advanced life, to counterbalance its other unavoidable defects.

The Duke of Norfolk’s death has made our friend’s brother2 the premier peer of England, and, in consequence of a settlement made some time since, gives an annuity of £1,500 to our friend for his life, and a handsome provision for his children. But the Duke left him nothing by his will, having for a considerable time past been on bad terms with him. The Duke saw Dr. Milner, the Catholic, frequently during his illness, and appeared to show some partiality for the faith of the family; but he was not reconciled to the Church by any overt act.

Dec. 29, 1815.

I wish I was at liberty to send you a copy of an admirable letter written by Lord Holland to Lord Kinnaird, at Paris, relative to Ney’s case, and the Duke of Wellington’s construction of the 12th Article of the capitulation of Paris. It is excellent both in argument and style, and very strong against Wellington, to whom it was shown, and who returned it without any observation. Though too late to save Ney, the letter, I trust, was not without its use, for Wellington is said to be again fluctuating towards the milder system, and the escape of Lavalette, which
1 Horace ii., Epistle 2, 21.
2 Edward Charles Howard, brother of the twelfth Duke.

138
Lord Castlereagh
seems clearly to have been permitted, may be considered as a proof that the ruling party in the present Government are apprehensive of pushing matters to extremes. Lord King, whom I am just going to visit, writes to give me notice “that he almost regrets Napoleon, for that, with all his bad qualities and rage for conquest (which includes almost every other fault), he was an Usurper, and as such obliged to be tolerant, and the natural enemy of many abuses much cherished by the Kings of the Earth, upon whom he was, in many respects, a powerful and effectual check.”

These opinions, however, are confined within a narrow circle. They are entirely unknown to the world at large.

You will be surprised to hear that Lord Castlereagh has a plan for doing something for the Catholics, and is in actual communication with the Pope relative to that subject. I believe this to be true, and shall rejoice in anything that is done, regretting only that it was not done long since, and by those who would have carried it with full effect.

Among the authors of the articles in the Edinburgh Review I may mention that of Lingard’s Anglo-Saxon History is written by Allen of Holland House, and Dr. Holland’s travels by Playfair.

≪ PREV

NEXT ≫

Alexander Abercromby (1784-1853) The youngest son of Sir Ralph Abercromby; he fought in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo, and was afterwards MP for Clackmannan (1817) and colonel of the Coldstream Guards.

James Abercromby, first baron Dunfermline (1776-1858) The son of Lt.-Gen Sir Ralph Abercromby; he was MP for Midhurst (1807), Calne (1812-30) and Edinburgh (1832), judge-advocate general (1827) and speaker of the House of Commons (1835-39); he was raised to the peerage in 1839.

Sir Ralph Abercromby (1734-1801) The son of George Abercromby (1705-1800); he was an MP and major-general in the British Army who defeated the French at Abu Qir near Alexandria, where he died of his wounds.

John Allen (1771-1843) Scottish physician and intimate of Lord Holland; he contributed to the Edinburgh Review and Encyclopedia Britannica and published Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in England (1830). He was the avowed atheist of the Holland House set.

William Pitt Amherst, first earl Amherst (1773-1857) The nephew and heir of Jeffrey Amherst, first Baron Amherst; educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford, he was envoy to Peking (1816-17), governor-general of India (1823-28), created earl of Amherst in 1826.

Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820) English naturalist; he accompanied Cook in his voyage around the world, 1768-1771 and was president of the Royal Society (1778-1820).

Eugène de Beauharnais (1781-1824) The son of the Empress Josephine and step-child of Napoleon, he was given the title of Prince Français.

Henri Gratien Bertrand (1773-1844) French general who followed Napoleon into exile; his memoirs were translated as Napoleon at Elba (1952).

Giuseppe Binda (1859 fl.) Originally of Lucca, he was an Italian refugee who from 1815 was employed as secretary and librarian at Holland House; he emigrated to America and was the U.S.A. consul at Leghorn.

Pierre-Louis-Jean-Casimir, duc de Blacas d'Aulps, prince de Blacas d'Aulps (1771-1839) French antiquarian, ultra-royalist, and diplomat during the Bourbon Restoration.

Gebhard Leberecht Blücher (1742-1819) Prussian general who fought for the allies at Leipzig and Waterloo.

Jacques Louis de Bournon (1751-1825) French mineralogist and Royalist elected to the Royal Society in 1802.

Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868) Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the Edinburgh Review in which he chastised Byron's Hours of Idleness; he defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University (1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).

Sir Henry Edward Bunbury, seventh baronet (1778-1860) The son of Henry William Burnbury; during his distinguished military career (1795-1809) he married a niece of Charles James Fox in 1807; he was under-secretary for war (1809-16), major-general (1815), and MP for Suffolk (1830).

George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824) The author of Childe Harold and Don Juan.

Caligula, emperor of Rome (12-41) Roman emperor (37-41 AD) who succeeded Tiberius and, following his assassination, was succeeded by Claudius.

George Caldwell (1773 c.-1848) The son of Charles Charles of Liverpool; educated at Pembroke and Jesus colleges, Cambridge, where he won the Chancellor's medal and was a fellow and tutor, 1796-1817.

Antonio Canova (1757-1822) Italian neoclassical sculptor who worked at Rome.

Queen Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1768-1821) Married the Prince of Wales in 1795 and separated in 1796; her husband instituted unsuccessful divorce proceedings in 1820 when she refused to surrender her rights as queen.

Catherine de Médicis (1519-1589) The daughter of Lorenzo II de Medici, duke of Urbino; after her marriage she was queen consort of King Henry II of France from 1547 to 1559 and then regent in behalf of her son.

King Charles I of England (1600-1649) The son of James VI and I; as king of England (1625-1649) he contended with Parliament; he was revered as a martyr after his execution.

Charles XII, King of Sweden (1682-1718) King of Sweden and a formidable military commander who invaded Poland, Russia, Denmark, and Norway.

Sir George Cockburn (1763-1847) After a long military career he published A Voyage to Cadiz and Gibraltar, up the Mediterranean to Sicily and Malta in 1810 and 1811 (1815) and was a political supporter of Sir Robert Peel.

Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) French political theorist and novelist; author of Adolphe (1816).

Domitian, emperor of Rome (51-96) Roman emperor and despot; he was the son of Vespasian and successor to Titus; he was succeeded by Nerva after his wife had him murdered.

Maria Edgeworth (1768-1849) Irish novelist; author of Castle Rackrent (1800) Belinda (1801), The Absentee (1812) and Ormond (1817).

Richard Lovell Edgeworth (1744-1817) Irish magnate and writer on education; he published Practical Education, 2 vols (1788), and other works in collaboration with his daughter the novelist.

Bryan Edwards (1743-1800) Jamaica planter, poet, and anti-abolitionist; he was MP for Grampound (1796).

George Keith Elphinstone, viscount Keith (1746-1823) Scottish naval officer; he was MP for Dumbartonshire (1780) and Stirlingshire (1790) and commander-in-chief of the North Sea (1803).

Friederike Caroline Sophia Alexandrina, duchess of Cumberland (1778-1841) Princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz who in 1815 she married Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland; she was widely disliked.

Thomas Erskine, first baron Erskine (1750-1823) Scottish barrister who was a Whig MP for Portsmouth (1783-84, 1790-1806); after defending the political radicals Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall in 1794 he was lord chancellor in the short-lived Grenville-Fox administration (1806-07).

Ferdinand I King of the Two Sicilies [King Bomba] (1751-1825) The son of King Charles, King of Naples and Sicily; in 1816 he merged his two thrones of Sicily and Naples as the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

King Ferdinand VII of Spain (1784-1833) The son of Charles IV, king of Spain; after his father's abdication and the defeat of the French in the Peninsular War he ruled Spain from 1813 to 1833.

Henry Petty- Fitzmaurice, third marquess of Lansdowne (1780-1863) The son of Lord Shelburne (1737-1805); he was a Whig peer, chancellor of the exchequer (1806), and President of the Council (1830).

Louisa Emma Fox-Strangways Petty- Fitzmaurice, marchioness of Lansdowne [née Thomas] (1785-1851) The daughter of Henry Thomas, second earl of Ilchester; she married Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice in 1808.

John Flaxman (1755-1826) English sculptor and draftsman who studied at the Royal Academy and was patronized by William Hayley.

Charles Elphinstone Fleeming (1774-1840) The son of John Elphinstone, the eleventh Lord Elphinstone; he was a naval commander in the Napoleonic Wars, commander-in-chief at Gibraltar in 1814 and MP for Stirlingshire.

Hon. Caroline Fox (1767-1845) The daughter of Stephen Fox, second Baron Holland of Foxley and niece of Charles James Fox. Jeremy Bentham was among her admirers.

Elizabeth Fox, Lady Holland [née Vassall] (1771 c.-1845) In 1797 married Henry Richard Fox, Lord Holland, following her divorce from Sir Godfrey Webster; as mistress of Holland House she became a pillar of Whig society.

Henry Richard Fox, third baron Holland (1773-1840) Whig politician and literary patron; Holland House was for many years the meeting place for reform-minded politicians and writers. He also published translations from the Spanish and Italian; Memoirs of the Whig Party was published in 1852.

John Hookham Frere (1769-1846) English diplomat and poet; educated at Eton and Cambridge, he was envoy to Lisbon (1800-02) and Madrid (1802-04, 1808-09); with Canning conducted the The Anti-Jacobin (1797-98); author of Prospectus and Specimen of an intended National Work, by William and Robert Whistlecraft (1817, 1818).

Jean Antoine Gauvain Gallois (1761-1828) French Liberal politician and writer; he was a friend of Lord Holland.

King George IV of Great Britain (1762-1830) Prince Regent (1811-20) and King of Great Britain (1820-1830).

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) Author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788).

William Gifford (1756-1826) Poet, scholar, and editor who began as a shoemaker's apprentice; after Oxford he published The Baviad (1794), The Maeviad (1795), and The Satires of Juvenal translated (1802) before becoming the founding editor of the Quarterly Review (1809-24).

William Wyndham Grenville, baron Grenville (1759-1834) Educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, he was a moderate Whig MP, foreign secretary (1791-1801), and leader and first lord of the treasury in the “All the Talents” ministry (1806-1807). He was chancellor of Oxford University (1810).

Charles Grey, second earl Grey (1764-1845) Whig statesman and lover of the Duchess of Devonshire; the second son of the first earl (d. 1807), he was prime minister (1831-34).

Herod I, king of Judea [Herod the Great] (73 BC c.-4 BC) King of Judea (43 BC) under the Romans.

Herodotus (484 BC c.-425 BC c.) Greek historian, author of Histories of the Persian Wars, called by Cicero “the founder of history.”

Sir Henry Holland, first baronet (1788-1873) English physician and frequenter of Holland House, the author of Travels in the Ionian Isles, Albania, Thessaly, Macedonia etc. during 1812 and 1813 (1814) and Recollections of Past Life (1872). His second wife, Saba, was the daughter of Sydney Smith.

Francis Horner (1778-1817) Scottish barrister and frequent contributor to the Edinburgh Review; he was a Whig MP and member of the Holland House circle.

Horace (65 BC-8 BC) Roman lyric poet; author of Odes, Epistles, Satires, and the Ars Poetica.

Bernard Edward Howard, twelfth duke of Norfolk (1765-1842) Educated at the English College at Douai, in 1815 he succeeded his third cousin, Charles Howard, eleventh duke (d. 1815), and took his seat in Parliament after passage of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1829.

Charles Howard, eleventh duke of Norfolk (1746-1815) The son of the tenth duke (d. 1786); educated by Roman Catholic tutors, he was a supporter of Charles James Fox and friend of the Prince of Wales.

Edward Charles Howard (1774-1816) English chemist; educated at Douai, he was the younger brother of the twelfth duke of Norfolk. He was elected fellow of the Royal Society in 1799.

Rowland Hunter (1774 c.-1864) London bookseller in St. Paul's Churchyard; the great-nephew and successor of the bookseller Joseph Johnson, he died in the Charterhouse.

Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850) Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the Edinburgh Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of poetry.

Joseph Johnson (1738-1809) London bookseller at St. Paul's Churchyard; he published Erasmus Darwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestly, and William Wordsworth.

Peter King, seventh baron King (1775-1833) Whig politician, son of the sixth baron; he was educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge before succeeding to the title in 1793. His son William married Ada Byron.

Charles Kinnaird, eighth baron Kinnaird (1780-1826) The son of George Kinnaird, seventh baron Kinnaird; he was Whig MP for Leominster (1802-05) before he succeeded to the title. He was the elder brother of Byron's friend, Douglas Kinnaird.

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834) French aristocrat and general in the American war of Independence.

Charles Lallemand (1774-1839) After serving as a general under Napoleon and attempting to found a colony in North America he served as governor of Corsica.

Antoine Marie Chamans comte de Lavalette (1769-1830) Napoleonic general and politician who, condemned to death upon the Bourbon Restoration, escaped from prison by exchanging clothes with his wife.

Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein (1843-1931) In 1865 she married Prince Alfred Aloys Eduard of Liechtenstein.

John Lingard (1771-1851) Roman Catholic historian, educated at Duoai; he published History of England (1819-30).

Louis XIV, king of France [the Sun King] (1638-1715) The son of Louis XIII (d. 1643); he was King of France 1643-1715.

Louis XVI, king of France (1754-1793) King of France 1774-1793; the husband of Marie Antoinette, he was guillotined 21 January 1793.

Louis XVIII, king of France (1755-1824) Brother of the executed Louis XVI; he was placed on the French throne in 1814 following the abdication of Napoleon.

Sir Hudson Lowe (1769-1844) Born in Galway, Ireland; he was lieutenant-general and governor of St. Helena where he had custody of Napoleon.

William Henry Lyttelton, third baron Lyttelton (1782-1837) Whig politician and wit, son of William Henry, first baron Lyttelton of the second creation; a noted Greek scholar at Christ Church, Oxford, he was MP for Worcestershire (1807-20); in 1828 he succeeded his brother as baron.

Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832) Scottish philosopher and man of letters who defended the French Revolution in Vindiciae Gallicae (1791); he was Recorder of Bombay (1803-1812) and MP for Knaresborough (1819-32).

Sir Frederick Lewis Maitland (1777-1839) Scottish naval officer, the third son of Captain Frederick Lewis Maitland (1730–1786); following Waterloo he escorted Napoleon to England in the Bellerophon.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) English political economist educated at Jesus College, Cambridge; he was author of An Essay on the Principles of Population (1798; 1803).

Jean-Paul Marat (1743-1793) French journalist and radical democrat, publisher of L'Ami du peuple; after he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday he was regarded as a republican martyr.

Jean Gabriel Marchand (1765-1851) French revolutionary general who fought in the Peninsular War; he resisted the return of Napoleon during the Hundred Days.

John Milner (1752-1826) Educated at the English College at Douai, he published The History, Civil and Ecclesiastical, and Survey of the Antiquities of Winchester, 2 vols (1798-1801) and was appointed bishop of Castabala in 1803.

Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier (1745-1799) The developer of the hot air balloon with his brother Joseph-Michel.

King Joachim Murat of Naples and Sicily (1767-1815) French marshall; he married Caroline Bonaparte (1800) and succeeded Joseph Bonaparte as king of Naples (1808); in 1815 he was captured and shot in an attempt to retake Naples.

John Murray II (1778-1843) The second John Murray began the Quarterly Review in 1809 and published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.

Emperor Napoleon I (1769-1821) Military leader, First Consul (1799), and Emperor of the French (1804), after his abdication he was exiled to Elba (1814); after his defeat at Waterloo he was exiled to St. Helena (1815).

Napoleon II, King of Rome (1811-1832) The son of Napoleon and his second wife, Marie Louise of Austria; he was given “King of Rome” as a courtesy title.

Nero, emperor of Rome (37-68) Roman emperor (54-68) who made Christians scapegoats for the disastrous fire of 64 AD.

Michel Ney, first Duc d'Elchingen (1769-1815) Marshall of France who covered Napoleon's retreat from Moscow and led the Old Guard at the battle of Waterloo, for which he was tried and executed by firing squad.

Elizabeth O'Neill (1791-1872) Irish-born actress who excelled in parts such as Ellen in the adaptation of Scott's The Lady of the Lake; she retired in 1819 following her marriage to William Wrixon-Becher (1780-1850), Irish MP.

Mungo Park (1771-1806) Scottish explorer who published Travels in the interior Districts of Africa (1799).

Sir George Philips, first baronet (1766-1847) Textile magnate and Whig MP; in addition to his mills in Staffordshire and Lancashire he was a trading partner with Richard “Conversation” Sharp. He was created baronet in 1828.

James Pillans (1778-1864) Edinburgh Reviewer and rector of Edinburgh High School, afterwards professor of Latin at Edinburgh University. He earned Byron's enmity for his review of Francis Hodgson's Juvenal.

Pope Pius VII. (1740-1823) The Pope during the Napoleonic era, 1800-1823.

John Playfair (1748-1819) Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh University and Whig man of letters who contributed to the Edinburgh Review.

Sir Frederick Ponsonby, third earl of Bessborough (1758-1844) The son of the second earl whom he succeeded in 1793; educated at Christ Church, Oxford, he was an opposition MP for Knaresborough (1780-93). He was the father of Lady Caroline Lamb.

George Ponsonby (1755-1817) The son of John Ponsonby (d. 1787); he was speaker of the Irish House of Commons, lord chancellor of Ireland in the Fox-Grenville ministry (1806) and succeeded Lord Grey as leader of the Whigs in the British House of Commons.

James Rennell (1742-1830) English cartographer who published his Bengal Atlas in 1779.

David Ricardo (1772-1823) English political economist, the author of Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817); he was a Whig MP for Portarlington (1819-23).

Samuel Rogers (1763-1855) English poet, banker, and aesthete, author of the ever-popular Pleasures of Memory (1792), Columbus (1810), Jaqueline (1814), and Italy (1822-28).

Sir Samuel Romilly (1757-1818) Reformer of the penal code and the author of Thoughts on Executive Justice (1786); he was a Whig MP and Solicitor-General who died a suicide.

John Russell, sixth duke of Bedford (1766-1839) The second son of Francis Russell, marquess of Tavistock; a Foxite Whig, he succeeded his brother in the title in 1802.

Anne Jean Marie René Savary, first duc de Rovigo (1774-1833) French general, diplomat, and minister of police; his memoirs were published in 1828.

James Scarlett, first baron Abinger (1769-1844) English barrister and politician educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple; he was a Whig MP (1819-34) who served as attorney-general in the Canning and Wellington ministries.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) Scottish poet, novelist, antiquary, biographer, editor, and sheriff.

Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816) Anglo-Irish playwright, author of The School for Scandal (1777), Whig MP and ally of Charles James Fox (1780-1812).

Léonard Simond de Sismondi (1773-1842) Swiss historian of Italian origin; author of L'Histoire des républiques italiennes du Moyen-Age (1809-18).

Elizabeth Smith [née Chandler] (1767 c.-1859) The daughter of Richard Chandler of Gloucester and wife of Thomas Smith of Easton Grey in Wiltshire; she was a Unitarian and friend of John Whishart.

Thomas Smith (1767 c.-1822) Of Easton Grey in Wiltshire; he was a county magistrate and friend of John Whishart, David Ricardo, and Robert Southey.

Frederick Spencer, fourth earl Spencer (1798-1857) The younger son of George Spencer, the second earl; he was educated at Eton and served as a naval captain and as Whig MP for Worcestershire (1831-1832) and Midhurst (1832-1834, 1837-1841).

Robert Stewart, viscount Castlereagh (1769-1822) British statesman who was foreign secretary (1812-1822). He fought a duel with George Canning in 1809 and died a suicide in 1822.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56 c.-117 c.) Roman historian; author of 18 books of Annals and 12 books of Histories.

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838) French diplomat; he was foreign minister under Napoleon.

Smithson Tennant (1761-1815) Agricultural chemist educated at Christ's College, Cambridge; he was a business partner of William Hyde Wollaston and a member of the King of Clubs and the Holland House circle.

William Harry Vane, first duke of Cleveland (1766-1842) The son of Henry Vane, second earl of Darlington (d. 1792); educated at Christ Church, Oxford, he was a lifelong friend of Henry Brougham and a notable sportsman.

Elizabeth Vernon (1762-1830) The daughter of Richard Vernon MP (1726-1800) and Evelyn Leveson (d. 1800—the daughter of Earl Gower). She was a friend of Caroline Fox and sister-in-law of Bobus Smith.

Vitellius, emperor of Rome (15-69) Roman emperor from 16 April to 22 December 69, when he was succeeded by Vespasian.

Voltaire (1694-1778) French historian and man of letters; author of, among many other works, The Age of Louis XIV (1751) and Candide (1759).

Henry Warburton [Eliot Warburton] (1784-1858) Educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, he was a Radical MP for Bridport in Dorset (1826-41) who took an interest in bodysnatching.

Arthur Wellesley, first duke of Wellington (1769-1852) Soldier and statesman; commander in the Peninsular Campaign (1809-1813), he defeated Napoleon at Waterloo and was prime minister (1828-1830).

Richard Wellesley, first marquess Wellesley (1760-1842) The son of Garret Wesley (1735-1781) and elder brother of the Duke of Wellington; he was Whig MP, Governor-general of Bengal (1797-1805), Foreign Secretary (1809-12), and Lord-lieutenant of Ireland (1821-28); he was created Marquess Wellesley in 1799.

John Whishaw (1764 c.-1840) Barrister, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge; he was Secretary to the African Association and biographer of Mungo Park. His correspondence was published as The “Pope” of Holland House in 1906.

Samuel Whitbread (1764-1815) The son of the brewer Samuel Whitbread (1720-96); he was a Whig MP for Bedford, involved with the reorganization of Drury Lane after the fire of 1809; its financial difficulties led him to suicide.

William Hyde Wollaston (1766-1828) English physician and scientist; he was senior fellow of Caius College, Cambridge (1787-1828) and secretary of the Royal Society (1804-16).

The Courier. (1792-1842). A London evening newspaper; the original proprietor was James Perry; Daniel Stuart, Peter Street, and William Mudford were editors; among the contributors were Samuel Taylor Coleridge and John Galt.

The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal. (1802-1929). Founded by Francis Jeffery, Sydney Smith, and Henry Brougham, the Edinburgh Review was for decades a principal organ of Whig opinion in Britain.

Morning Chronicle. (1769-1862). James Perry was proprietor of this London daily newspaper from 1789-1821; among its many notable poetical contributors were Coleridge, Southey, Lamb, Rogers, and Campbell.

The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the Quarterly was instigated by Walter Scott as a Tory rival to the Edinburgh Review. It was edited by William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.

The Times. (1785-). Founded by John Walter, The Times was edited by Thomas Barnes from 1817 to 1841. In the romantic era it published much less literary material than its rival dailies, the Morning Chronicle and the Morning Post.

John Allen (1771-1843) “Lingard's Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church” in Edinburgh Review. Vol. 25 (October 1815): 346-354.

Dictionary of National Biography. 66 vols (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1885-1901). Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee.

Sir John Barrow, first baronet (1764-1848) “Park's Journal of a Mission to the Interior of Africa” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 13 No. 25 (April 1815): 120-51.

Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868) “Park's Last Journey and Life” in Edinburgh Review. Vol. 24 (February 1815): 471-490.

Maria Edgeworth (1768-1849) Patronage. 4 vols (London: J. Johnson and Co., 1814). A society novel mostly set in England.

Maria Edgeworth (1768-1849) Tales of Fashionable Life. 6 vols (London: J. Johnson, 1809-1812). A collection of novels, oft reprinted.

John Lingard (1771-1851) The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 2 vols (Newcastle: 1806). Second edition 1810.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) Observations on the Effects of the Corn Laws and of a Rise or Fall in the Price of Corn on the Agriculture and general Wealth of the Country. (London: J. Murray, 1815).

Mungo Park (1771-1806) The Journal of a Mission to the Interior of Africa in the Year 1805. (London: John Murray, 1815). Edited, with a memoir, by John Whishaw.

John Playfair (1748-1819) “Holland's Travels into Albania, Etc.” in Edinburgh Review. Vol. 25 (October 1815): 455-485.

John Whishaw (1764 c.-1840) “An Account of the Life of Mr. Park” in The Journal of a Mission to the Interior of Africa in the Year 1805. (London: John Murray, 1815). The volume was edited by Whishaw.

INFORMATION FROM TEI HEADER

Source Description:

Author: Whishaw, J. (John), 1764 or 5-1840

Title: The “Pope” of Holland House: Selections from the Correspondence of John Whishaw and his Friends 1813-1840 (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1906).

Electronic Edition:

Series: Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org

Encoding Description: Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed. Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.

Markup and editing by: David Hill Radcliffe

Completed April 2011

Publication Statement:

Publisher: Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities, Virginia Tech

Availability: Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License