Samuel Rogers and his Contemporaries
Chapter II. 1805-1809.
CHAPTER II.
1805-1809.
Rogers and Fox—Visits to
Fox—Fox’s Last
Illness—Death of Fox—Holland
House—Rogers and Lord and Lady
Holland—Death of Maria and Sutton
Sharpe—Their Children—Catharine
Sharpe—Rogers and Thomas
Moore—Duel with Jeffrey—Richard
Sharp in Parliament—Windham—Mrs
Inchbald—Uvedale
Price—Rogers and
Wordsworth—Brighton in 1808—Rogers
and Lord Erskine—Rogers and
Walter Scott—Hoppner—The Quarterly Review—Lines on Mrs.
Duff—Scott on Mrs.
Duff’s Death—Letter from
Luttrell—Rogers and the
Princess of Wales.
The intercourse which Rogers had with Mr. Fox in the last
years of that great statesman’s life always remained among his most cherished
recollections. More than a third of his volume of ‘Recollections’1 is
devoted to Fox, and Rogers records that these
scraps of conversation—which year after year he repeated to new friends at his
celebrated breakfast parties—were read by Lord
Holland with tears in his eyes. They give us the home view of a great
political leader—what he was in free talk with a friend. ‘I am well
aware,’ says Rogers in a brief prefatory note,
‘that these scraps of conversation have little to recommend them, but as
serving to show his playfulness, his love of letters, and his good nature in
28 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
unbending himself to a young man.’ The first meeting with
Fox he has put on record was at Mr.
Stone’s in 1792,1 but the first conversation
recorded in the ‘Recollections’ took place at
William Smith’s house in 1796. At the
earlier meeting, Talleyrand, then only known as the
Bishop of Autun, was present, with Sheridan, Madame de Genlis (then
Madame de Sillery), and Pamela. Sheridan was, or pretended to be, desperately
smitten with Pamela, and Madame de Genlis tells
us he made her an offer of marriage. On this particular evening
Sheridan was busy writing verses to her in very imperfect French.
Shortly afterwards she married the unfortunate Lord Edward
Fitzgerald. During the evening, Fox’s natural
son, a deaf and dumb boy, came in, and Fox flew to receive him with
the most lively pleasure. He conversed with the boy by signs, and
Talleyrand remarked to Rogers how strange it
was to meet the first orator in Europe, and see him talking only with his fingers. The
chief political remark of Fox’s, which
Rogers records in his diary, is that ‘all titles are equally
ridiculous.’ The next record of Fox’s conversation is that
with which the ‘Recollections’ open. It was at a
dinner at William Smith’s, and Rogers puts
on record that he was delighted with Fox’s ‘fine tact,
his feeling, open and gentlemanlike manner, so full of candour and diffidence, and
entering with great ardour and interest into the conversation.’ The next
meeting recorded was at Sergeant Heywood’s,
when Lord Derby, Lord
Stanley, and Lord Lauderdale were
present, and Fox ‘pooh-poohed political economy, and spoke
lightly of Adam
Smith. From this time Fox seems
to have numbered Rogers among his friends. They had much intercourse
at Paris in 1802, and Rogers visited him in January, 1803, at St.
Anne’s Hill. The last visit to Fox’s country house was in
July, 1805. Rogers records that he ‘went down with Courtenay and a brace of Weymouth trout.’ Leaving
London at eleven, they reached St. Anne’s Hill at three, and found
Fox in his garden, dressed in a light-coloured coat and nankeen
gaiters, and wearing a white hat. He complained of the coldness of the summer, and of the
gnats, and said he had not seen the Chertsey hills for a fortnight. ‘How d’ye
do?’ he exclaimed, when it cleared in the evening, and the hills became visible. The
talk during this visit fills nearly thirty pages of the ‘Recollections.’ Fox was very cordial. They arrived
on the Wednesday, and proposed to return home on Saturday, but Fox
insisted on making them stay till Monday, that they might have a quiet day on Sunday. Such
a visit to the great Whig orator, when his life was fast drawing to its premature close,
was likely to remain, as it did, among the proudest and most cherished of
Rogers’s recollections. In his poem of ‘Human Life’ there is an apostrophe to
Fox, in which this and other visits are described:—
Thee at St. Anne’s so soon of care beguiled,
Playful, sincere, and artless as a child;
Thee who would’st watch a bird’s-nest on a spray,
Through the green lanes exploring day by day,
How oft from grove to grove, from seat to seat,
With thee conversing in thy lov’d retreat,
I saw the sun go down. Ah! then ‘twas thine
Ne’er to forget some volume half divine;
|
30 |
ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
|
|
Borne in thy hand behind thee as we strayed,
And where we sat (and many a halt we made)
To read there in a fervour all thine own,
And in thy grand and melancholy tone,
Some splendid passage, not to thee unknown,
Fit theme for long discourse.
|
In the succeeding February, after Fox
had been appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Lord
Grenville’s ‘Ministry of All the Talents,’
Fox removed to a house in Stable Yard, Westminster, and there
Rogers saw him. At one of these visits
Fox was talking earnestly about Dryden, of whom he was so fond that he once thought of editing his works.
In the warmth of conversation with a sympathising listener, he forgot that a levee was
being held, which, as a Minister of State, it was his duty to attend. When he suddenly
recollected it, there was no time to dress, and he set off in his ordinary attire. Reminded
that he was not in a Court suit, ‘Never mind,’ he replied; ‘he
is so blind, he will never know what I have got on.’
On the 23rd of March Rogers called on
him, and found him reading Scott’s ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel,’ which
Rogers had lent him. They had been together to see
‘the Young Roscius’ a short time
before. Fox’s health was already failing, and,
early in April, Rogers was summoned to visit him by apathetic letter
from Mrs. Fox. This letter shows the esteem in which
Rogers was held by Fox and his wife, and
proves that Mrs. Fox had been very anxious about her husband’s
health a month before she communicated her anxiety to Captain
| FOX'S ILLNESS AND DEATH | 31 |
Trotter, who says that she first spoke to him on the
subject early in May.
‘My dear Sir,—If you can find time any evening
before half-past ten to call here, I am sure Mr.
Fox will be very happy to see you, as he has very often wished
to do, particularly since he has been ill. He is now, thank God, better, but
indeed, my dear Mr. Rogers, I have been
very wretched for some days. Pray come soon, as I know he will enjoy seeing
you.
‘Yours very truly,
‘Stable Yard, Saturday.’
This Saturday was either the 5th or 12th of April. Rogers went at once and found Fox lying with Hippocrates open before
him. The remark recorded in the ‘Recollections’ was made in an interval of his fits of stupor. He
recovered for a time, and on Sunday, the 20th, Rogers dined at his
house by formal invitation to a six-o’clock dinner. This was probably the last time
Rogers saw him. In May, Mrs.
Fox mentioned to Trotter the anxiety
her husband’s illness caused her; in June he became worse; and in July, longing to be
back at St. Anne’s Hill, set out for home, intending to take Chiswick House on the
way. He never got beyond this first stage of the journey, but died at Chiswick on the 13th
of September.
The death of Fox gave Rogers occasion for one of the best of his smaller poems.
He had for him an unfeigned admiration and affection, and was in complete sympathy
32 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
with the feeling of numb despair with which the Whig party saw the
disappearance of their illustrious leader just as the way seemed opening before him and
them into a better time. In one of his most prosaic pieces Wordsworth, writing when Fox’s death was hourly
expected, spoke of a power passing from the earth. Rogers wrote his
‘Lines in Westminster
Abbey,’ when the power had passed:—
In him, resentful of another’s wrong,
The dumb were eloquent, the feeble strong;
Truth from his lips a charm celestial drew,
Ah! who so mighty and so gentle too?
What though with war the madding nations rung,
Peace, when he spake, was ever on his tongue,
Amid the frowns of Power, the cares of State,
Fearless, resolved, and negligently great
.......
Friend of all human kind! not here alone
(The voice that speaks was not to thee unknown)
Wilt Thou be missed. O’er every land and sea,
Long, long, shall England be revered in Thee;
And when the storm is hushed, in distant years,
Foes on thy grave shall meet and mingle tears.
|
The distant years have come and the poet’s prophecy is fulfilled.
Fox’s fame is part of the proud inheritance
of Englishmen, to whatever party they belong. After more than eighty years, in which we
have had statesmen as fearless, leaders as ‘resolved and negligently
great,’ and orators as powerful, it is not possible to realise the
disappointment, the distress, and the anxiety for the future, which the passing away of
this power from the earth caused to the friends of freedom and progress
everywhere, as well as to his own immediate circle. It was a
time when death seemed busy with the great. Nelson had
died on the 21st of the previous October; Pitt had
gone on the 23rd of January; and now Fox had followed within eight
months. To the Whig party the loss seemed almost fatal. There was no one to take his place.
How poignant the personal sorrow and the public and party disappointment were, is
illustrated by one of Rogers’s recollections.
Many years after Fox’s death he was at a party at Chiswick, and
roamed with Sir Robert Adair over the house. They
talked of the lost leader, and Sir Robert Adair asked in which room he
died. ‘In this very room,’ replied Rogers, and
Sir Robert Adair burst into a flood of tears.
In his later years Rogers often told
and retold the story of his early intercourse with the greatest of the Whigs. He had
introduced Wordsworth to Fox at a ball given by Mrs. Fox.
Wordsworth was then little known, but he had already sent
Fox a copy of the ‘Lyrical Ballads,’ with a letter in which he had
drawn special attention to ‘The
Brothers’ and ‘Michael’ as containing pictures of the domestic affections as they exist
among the small cultivating proprietors called in the north country
‘statesmen.’ Fox had replied pointing out that
‘Harry Gill,’ ‘We are Seven,’ ‘The Mad Mother,’ and ‘The Idiot Boy’ were his favourites,
and expressing his dislike of blank verse for subjects which are to be treated of with
simplicity. This correspondence was probably in the minds of both when
Fox and Wordsworth met, and accounts for
Fox’s greeting, ‘I am glad to see you,
Mr. Wordsworth, though I am not of your faction.’
34 |
ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
|
|
It is easy to understand how Rogers’s ‘Recollections’ of Fox, which every
student of English history reads with satisfaction and interest, even in these distant
days, told as they were in a manner which all contemporary accounts agree in describing as
singularly effective and attractive, endeared him to the Whig circles in which he moved. It
is in those ‘Recollections,’ embracing as they did
Fox, Burke (through
Mrs. Crewe and Dr.
Lawrence), Grattan, Porson, Tooke,
Talleyrand, Erskine, Scott, Lord Grenville, and the Duke of
Wellington, that we have the real Table Talk of Samuel
Rogers. The qualities which recommended him to these men, all of whom except
Burke he knew personally, and with all of whom except
Burke and Talleyrand, and perhaps
Wellington, he lived on terms of intimate friendship, must of
course be taken into account in any estimate of the causes which made him not only the
oracle of the Holland House circle, but of London society generally for so many years.
Fox, in illness, often wishing to see him, bears testimony to the
pleasure his society gave to men who found a refuge in it from the tedium of weakness, from
the anxieties of business, and from the cares of State.
Rogers’s acquaintance with Lord and Lady Holland
sprang in all probability out of his intimacy with Fox. He had become a familiar visitor at Holland House before the death of the
great Whig orator and statesman, and their common reverence for his memory formed a strong
tie between Rogers and Lord Holland, though no
two men could more widely differ from each other. They were united by literary sympathies,
by political opinions, and by social likes and dislikes; but still more by that
complete dissimilarity which made the one, in
many respects, the complement to the other. Writing of Holland House in 1831, after he had
received his first invitation to it, Macaulay calls
it ‘the favourite resort of wits and beauties, of painters and poets, of scholars,
philosophers, and statesmen,’ and he tells his sister that
‘Rogers is the oracle of that circle.’
Rogers had got very early into high favour with the stern and
eccentric guardian of its portals, without whose approval few could enter them and none
remain. Lord Holland could not ask a friend to dinner without
consulting his wife. One day, shortly before his death, Lord Holland
met Rogers at the door. He had been calling on Lady
Holland, and Lord Holland asked him if he returned to
dinner. ‘I have not been invited,’ answered Rogers, and
went away. Macaulay describes her, in 1831, as ‘a large,
bold-looking woman, with the remains of a fine person and the air of Queen Elizabeth.’ In three brief sentences
he sums up the characters of both host and hostess: ‘Lord
Holland is extremely kind. But that is of course, for he is kindness
itself. Her ladyship too, which is by no means of course, is all graciousness and
civility.’ Rogers told Mr.
Dyce that, when she wanted to get rid of a fop, she would beg his pardon and
ask him to sit a little further off, adding, ‘There is something on your
handkerchief I do not quite like.’ When men were standing with their backs
close to the chimney-piece, she would call out to them to stir the fire. In 1843, when
Brougham and Lady Holland were
abroad with Rogers, Brougham writing to
Rogers to propose an excursion remarked,‘Among other
inducements don’t forget how very angry 36 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
it will make Lady H.
She hates anybody doing anything.’ It is a striking proof of the essential
gentleness of Rogers’s character that he kept the fast
friendship, and, as her letters show, the affectionate regard of this imperious person for
over forty years.
Lord Holland had a sincere admiration for Rogers’s poetry; and Rogers had
a hearty affection for Lord Holland as a man. Macaulay expresses his wonder ‘that such men as
Lord Granville, Lord
Holland, Hobhouse, Lord Byron, and others of high rank in intellect, should
place Rogers, as they do, above Southey, Moore, and even
Scott himself.’ His explanation is
that ‘this comes of being in the highest society of London.’ But
Macaulay here confuses between post hoc and propter hoc. Rogers was in the highest society of London
in 1831 because his poems had been so heartily admired for nearly forty years. ‘The Pleasures of Memory’ had made
him the fashion before Macaulay was born. There is no doubt that
Lord Holland did much to confirm and sustain the fame of his
friend. The lines he inscribed on the summer-house in the garden of Holland House are
reproduced in the memoirs or the letters of scores of distinguished visitors. It was no
ordinary homage from such a man that the summer-house should be called
Rogers’s seat, and that he should have inscribed upon
it—
Here Rogers sate, and here for ever dwell
For me those pleasures which he sang so well.
|
The lines were put into Latin by Luttrell—
Rogeri solitas sedes hie aspicis—hic mi
Usque voluptates habitant quas tam bene cantat.
|
Rogers repaid the compliment paid him by Lord Holland. In the ‘Lines written in Westminster Abbey,’ after
Fox’s funeral, he had spoken of
Fox—
When in retreat he laid his thunder by For lettered ease and calm philosophy. ....... There, listening sate the hero and the sage, And they, by virtue and by blood allied, Whom most he loved, and in whose arms he died. |
His intimacy with the Hollands had not then begun; but when, some
years later, he wrote ‘Human
Life,’ it had become very constant and close. At the end of the apostrophe to
Fox in that poem he refers to Lord Holland— Thy bell has tolled! —But in thy place among us we behold One who resembles thee. |
The gloom which settled down over the prospects of the nation in this
disastrous year was reflected in some of Rogers’s domestic relations. Rogers himself has
given the world, in a passage in his poem on ‘Human Life,’ a glimpse of what may fitly be
described as a domestic tragedy. It is, perhaps, the most pathetic part of his writings;
and Macaulay, in his review of Moore’s Life of Byron, describes the last dozen lines as most
sweet and graceful. In a letter to his sister, Macaulay tells her why
he thus dragged in a compliment to Rogers, but he assures her that it
is ‘not undeserved.’ The whole passage, however, is, as I have already shown
other parts of this poem to be, taken from his own
38 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
personal experience,
and is full of testimony to the strength and purity of his domestic affections— But man is born to suffer. On the door Sickness has set her mark; and now no more Laughter within we hear, or woodnotes wild As of a mother singing to her child. All now in anguish from that room retire, Where a young cheek glows with consuming fire, And Innocence breathes contagion—all but one, But she who gave it birth—from her alone The medicine-cup is taken. Through the night, And through the day, that with its dreary light Comes unregarded, she sits silent by, Watching the changes with her anxious eye: While they without, listening below, above, (Who but in sorrow know how much they love?) From every little noise catch hope and fear, Exchanging still, still as they turn to hear, Whispers and sighs, and smiles all tenderness That would in vain the starting tear repress. Such grief was ours,—it seems but yesterday— When in thy prime, wishing so much to stay, ‘Twas thine, Maria, thine without
a sigh, At midnight in a Sister’s arms to die! Oh, thou wert lovely—lovely was thy frame, And pure thy spirit as from Heaven it came; And, when recall’d to join the blest above, Thou died’st a victim to exceeding love, Nursing the young to health. In happier hours, When idle Fancy wove luxuriant flowers, Once in thy mirth thou bad’st me write on thee; And now I write—what thou shalt never see! |
The door on which sickness had set her mark was that of his brother-in-law, Sutton Sharpe, where, in these latter years, Rogers had often heard the
laughter of his little niece and nephews, the children of his sister Maria. She was Sutton Sharpe’s
second wife, and at their wedding, in 1795, Samuel Rogers had given
her away. Her husband, as has been previously said, had taught Rogers
all he knew of art, and Rogers owed to him his introduction to and
acquaintance with the chief artists of the time. Their married life of nine years and a
half had been a very happy one. Mrs. Sharpe had won the affection of
her husband’s only child by his first
marriage, and this stepdaughter—a girl of thirteen when the marriage took
place—had shared with her the family and household cares. In the beginning of the
year 1806 the stepdaughter was away from home, and the little girl, Mary Sharpe, then five years old, was attacked by fever.
Before she had recovered, a little boy of three, Henry
Sharpe, was also attacked; and his mother, reluctant to break her
stepdaughter’s holiday, kept the illness from her and undertook the nursing herself.
The anxiety proved too much for her. While the children were still only convalescent,
another was born, and a fortnight later the mother caught the fever and died, ‘a
victim to exceeding love,’ as her brother says. Sutton
Sharpe never recovered from the blow, and in five months’ time it was
followed by another. His brothers-in-law, Samuel and
Henry Rogers, as his bankers, had to tell him
that he was ruined, and the next day he was found dead in his brewery.
Both the children recovered, and, with their four brothers, grew up under
the constant motherly care of their elder half-sister, to form a family of every one of
40 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
whom their poet uncle had reason to be proud. Their
half-sister—and from this period their second mother—Catharine Sharpe was twenty-four. The story of this group
of tho children of one father covers a period of almost a hundred years.
Catharine Sharpe was born on the 2nd of May, 1782; and Samuel Sharpe, the survivor of the group, died on the 28th
of July, 1881. There was a story worth telling in every one of their lives. Sutton Sharpe became an eminent Queen’s Counsel, a
leader of the Chancery Bar, a Commissioner on Chancery Reform, and when he was struck down
by paralysis in 1843, in his forty-sixth year, had before him, as the Examiner said, the most brilliant professional prospects. Of
Samuel Sharpe, the eminent Egyptologist, the translator of the
Bible, the benefactor of University College and School, and the Unitarian philanthropist,
it is needless to speak. Mary married Mr. Edwin Wilkins Field, whose statue in the Law Courts is
the testimony of the legal profession to the services he rendered it. Henry, a successful merchant, spent his leisure in various
forms of philanthropic work, one of which is recorded in Hampstead Parish Church in a
medallion monument raised, as the inscription says, ‘by those who derived benefit in
their youth from his disinterested efforts for their instruction and improvement, and who,
though scattered through the world, gratefully unite to perpetuate the memory of a life
devoted to the good of others.’ William
Sharpe, who ably edited Rogers’s
‘Recollections,’
and with Samuel was left by Rogers as his
literary executor, was, at one time, President of the Incorporated Law Society, and was
consulted by successive Lord Chancellors | His Sister Maria's Children | 41 |
on important Bills. There is a story of a Lord Chancellor who one day sent him a
Bankruptcy Bill which was to be introduced in the House of Lords on the next day.
William Sharpe studied it carefully for a good part of the night,
and early the next morning hurried off to report that the scheme would not work.
‘You are quite right,’ said the Chancellor, ‘the Bill
won’t work; but it must pass, for we have promised the places.’ The
Bill did pass, and did not work. The places were given, and soon after the placemen were
displaced and compensated. Daniel Sharpe, the
youngest brother, was a partner with his brother Henry. He was as
eminent in geology as his elder brother Samuel was in Egyptology. He
was killed by a fall from his horse in 1856, and at the time of his death was President of
the Geological Society,1 Fellow of the Royal Society, as well as of
the Linnean and Zoological Societies. It is very rarely indeed that all the sons of a
family attain distinction or success; and that this group of children, left orphans in
their infancy, lived such useful and honourable lives is due, in the first place, to the
qualities they inherited, and, in the second, to the careful nurture and the considerate
training they received in the home of which their elder half-sister, Catharine
Sharpe, was the self-sacrificing guardian and head.
Tragedy and comedy, like laughter and tears, lie so close together in life
that the tale of Tom Moore’s duel with
Jeffrey wove itself in naturally enough among
the
1 I am told by an accomplished geologist that Daniel Sharpe’s views on cleavage and other
disputed points are now generally accepted, and that the value of his work is
obtaining general recognition. |
42 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
painful experiences of this fatal year. Moore has
devoted a special monograph to this episode in his life, into which he seems to have gone,
as he did into most things, by mere impulse. Jeffrey had written a
slashing review of Moore’s
‘Epistles, Odes, and other
Poems,’ in the Edinburgh
Review for July, 1806, and was apparently conscious that he had done
Moore injustice. Rogers met him at Lord Fincastle’s at dinner in the early summer, and the
conversation turned on Moore. Lord Fincastle
described the new poet as having great amenity of manner, and Jeffrey
laughingly replied, ‘I am afraid he would not show much amenity to me.’
The insult and challenge followed soon after this conversation, and a meeting was arranged
at Chalk Farm. William Spencer had heard of it, and
had told the police, and, when the combatants were about to fire, the police appeared and
took them all off to the station. Moore sent for
Spencer to bail him, but Rogers had heard of
the arrest and was on the spot in time to give the necessary security. This quarrel of two
friends gave Rogers an opportunity of playing his favourite part of
peacemaker. He carried messages between the combatants, containing, as
Moore says, those formalities of explanation which the world
requires, and arranged that they should meet at his house. The meeting took place on one of
the Mondays in August, and resulted in a warm and lasting friendship between
Moore and Jeffrey. In the autumn,
Rogers was at Tunbridge Wells, and Miss Godfrey, writing to Moore, tells him that they
have had from Rogers the whole history of the affair, even to the
slightest particulars. ‘If I had never known you,’ she | FRIENDS IN THE NEW PARLIAMENT | 43 |
says, ‘the story would have interested me,
the way he tells it. He makes you out a perfect hero of romance. But what pleased me
most was to hear that Jeffrey took a great fancy to you from the
first moment he saw you in the field of battle, pistol in hand to kill him. I believe
Rogers to be truly your friend on this occasion.’
The romance of which Moore was the hero was not the duel in which
Rogers had no share, but the reconciliation of which he was the
agent.
Little more than a month after the death of Fox, there was a dissolution of Parliament, and at the general election
which followed, many of Rogers’s personal
friends found seats in the House of Commons. The Grenville Ministry was so successful at
the polls that Horner declared it to be a misfortune
for the country that it was deprived of any opposition. The ministry, however, was not
strong in itself, and Lord Eldon, anticipating by fifty
years a remark attributed to Mr. Disraeli, had
declared that Englishmen do not love coalitions. Among Rogers’s
friends in the new Parliament were Richard Sharp,
who had been returned for Castle Rising, J. W. Ward
(afterwards Earl of Dudley), William
Lamb, the Lord Melbourne of the Reform era, and
Lord Henry Petty (afterwards the Marquis
of Lansdowne). The name of Lord
Palmerston, then returned for the first time, and spoken of by his
contemporaries as a mere lad, seems to link this Parliament of 1806-7, and the transitory
gleam of hope it brought to the long-suffering Whigs, with our own times. On the 23rd of
March, Sharp, as Mackintosh
tells us, greatly distinguished himself by an excellent speech against the
44 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
Copenhagen expedition. Ward speaks of it in a
letter to Rogers.
‘My dear Rogers,—I cannot refuse myself the pleasure of being one of
the first to communicate to you the news of our friend Sharp’s success. He made his debut last
night in reply to Sturges Bourne.
Nothing could be more happy. He was of course a good deal alarmed, but luckily
his alarm by no means suspended the exercise of his powers, and the speech was
received, as it well deserved, with the utmost applause and favour by the
House. His voice and manner both excellent. Take notice, I am not merely
telling you my own opinion, but that of far more competent judges.
‘Pray don’t desert my dinner on Saturday in order
to behold him in glory at the K. of Clubs.
‘I am far from well, and go not out except in a
carriage.
‘Yours always most truly,
‘Don’t forget the present you have promised
to make me.’
There were great hopes at this time among Richard Sharp’s friends that he would take a distinguished position
in Parliament. Mackintosh, writing to Whishaw in February, 1808, expressed his delight at
Sharp’s rejection from the Committee of Finance in the new
Parliament, which he hoped would rouse his strength.
Hence the delight expressed by his friends at the success of his speech on the Copenhagen
expedition. It was not followed up. Sharp was more fitted to be, as he
was for a generation, the private counsellor of statesmen than a prominent politician in
that stormy time. His parliamentary career was abruptly closed. This Parliament, short and
evil as its days were, stands distinguished in history for performing what Lord Grenville, without any exaggeration, described as one of
the most glorious acts which had ever been done by any assembly of any nation in the world.
It abolished the Slave Trade. An attempt to make one further step in emancipation was
stopped by the king, the ministry resigned, the Parliament was dissolved, the brief gleam
of political spring passed away, and the winter of exclusion and depression closed over the
Whigs for more than twenty years.
A personal interest in the political fortunes of his friends constituted in
these days the whole of Rogers’s political
activity. Fully as he always sympathised with the Whig leaders, he took no part in
political life. He had gone to see Gilbert Wakefield
in prison in 1800, and he paid a similar visit to Sir Francis
Burdett in 1811; he was often at Wimbledon on a visit to Horne Tooke, and nobody sat at
Rogers’s table without being conscious that Fox’s memory pervaded the house. But though
Rogers had voted for Horne Tooke in the
Westminster election of 1796, when his own brother-in-law, Sutton Sharpe, had taken part in his nomination, he never again exercised
the franchise till Sir Samuel Romilly stood for the
same constituency in 1818. His name is
46 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
found in all the Whig memoirs of
these times;1 but it is as a figure in society. He was enjoying
life, reaping the full satisfaction of his uneclipsed poetic fame, making a young
man’s use—for at forty-five he was still young—of his wealth and his
opportunities, with only the occasional drawback of imperfect health. Writing to Miss Godfrey in March, 1807, Moore asks her, ‘How go on Spencer and Rogers and the rest of those agreeable
rattles who seem to think life such a treat that they can never get enough of
it?’ This seems to show that Rogers at this period gave his
friends the impression that he enjoyed life. Yet there is ample evidence that he did not
live for mere enjoyment, and that the pleasure he chiefly sought was that of intercourse
with the most eminent people of his time.
There are letters of this date from Miss Joanna
Baillie and Mrs. Barbauld, which show
that he was on close terms of friendship with those eminent women. A call on Mrs. Inchbald,2 then in the height
of her fame, brought from her a curious and characteristic apology.
‘My dear Sir,—I consider myself so much obliged
to you for the attention you paid me in calling yesterday
1 For example:—‘July 16, 1808.—Went to dinner at Ward’s. Rogers,
Lord Ponsonby, Lord Cowper, Lord Morpeth.’ ‘June
16, 1809.—Dined at Rogers’s. Lord and Lady
Charlemont, Elliot, Horner.’—Diary of the Right
Hon. W. Windham, pp. 477, 492. 2 Rogers quotes ‘an excellent writer’ in one
of his notes to the poem of ‘Human Life.’ The quotation is
from Mrs.
Inchbald’s Nature and
Art. He met her one day in London, and was told that
she had been calling on her friends, but none of them would see her.
‘I knew Mrs. Siddons
|
| MRS. INCHBALD; UVEDALE PRICE | 47 |
that I cannot resist my
desire to apologise for your reception.
‘For the sake of a romantic view of the Thames, I have
shut myself in an apartment which will not admit of a second person. It is
therefore my wish to be thought never at home. But when the scruples of the
persons who answer for me baffle this design, and I have received a token of
regard which flatters me, I take the liberty thus to explain my situation. Dear
sir, with much esteem, your most humble servant,
‘16th March, 1808.’
Among the acquaintances made at this time was Uvedale Price, one of the quaintest figures, the best letter writers, and
the most eccentric people of his time. He was celebrated as an improver of landscapes, and
had published, in 1794, an ‘Essay on the
Picturesque as compared with the Sublime and Beautiful, and on the Use of Studying
Pictures for the purpose of Improving real Landscapes.’ He became a warm
friend of Rogers, and found the comfortable house in
St. James’s Place a most convenient lodging in many of his visits to London.
Rogers occasionally visited him at his house at Foxley, in
Herefordshire, and it was there, in August, 1808, that General
Fitzpatrick gave Rogers some of the stories of Fox
which are recorded in the ‘Recollections.’ One of the most characteristic of these was told of
Uvedale Price himself, who thought himself the most accomplished
was at home,’ she complained, ‘yet I
was not admitted.’ She shed tears. Rogers tried to
comfort her, and asked her to go home with him and dine; she refused. She died in
1821. |
48 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
of critics. Fox allowed him to see
the MS. of his ‘History of the Reign of
James the Second.’ He made a multitude of verbal criticisms upon it and
sent them to Fox, who threw them into the fire.
Fitzpatrick told Rogers that Mackintosh had offered, and Fox had
accepted, his assistance in that History.
Rogers was already in correspondence with Wordsworth and Walter
Scott. The earliest letter of Wordsworth’s which
has been preserved, arose out of the collection made for a family in Easdale whose parents
had perished in a storm.
‘Grasmere: Sept. 29, 1808.
‘My dear Sir,—I am greatly obliged to you for
your kind exertions in favour of our Grasmere Orphans, and for your own
contribution. It will give you pleasure to hear that there is the best prospect
of the children being greatly benefited in every respect by the sum which has
been raised, amounting to nearly 500l. They are placed
in three different houses in the Vale of Grasmere, and are treated with great
tenderness. They will be carefully taught to read and write, and, when they are
of a proper age, care will be taken to put them forward in life in the most
advisable manner.
‘The bill you sent me—31l.
8s.—I have already paid into the hands of the
Secretary.
‘I was glad to hear that our friend Sharp was so much benefited in his health by
his late visit to our beautiful country. We passed one pleasant day together,
but we were unlucky, upon the whole, in not seeing
| WORDSWORTH ON CRABBE'S APOTHECARY | 49 |
much of each other, as a more than
usual part of his time was spent about Keswick and Ulswater. I am happy to find
that we coincide in opinion about Crabbe’s verses, for poetry in no sense can they be
called. Sharp is also of the same opinion. I remember that
I mentioned in my last that there was nothing in the last publication so good
as the description of the parish workhouse, apothecary, &c. This is true,
and it is no less true that the passage which I commended is of no great merit,
because the description, at the best of no high order, is, in the instance of
the apothecary, inconsistent—that is, false. It no doubt sometimes
happens, but, as far as my experience goes, very rarely, that country
practitioners neglect and brutally treat their patients; but what kind of men
are they who do so?—not apothecaries like
Crabbe’s professional, pragmatical coxcombs,
“all pride, generally neat, business, bustle, and
conceit”—no, but drunken reprobates, frequenters of boxing-matches,
cock-fightings, and horse-races. These are the men who are hard-hearted with
their patients, but any man who attaches so much importance to his profession
as to have strongly caught, in his dress and manner, the outward formalities of
it may easily indeed be much occupied with himself, but he will not behave
towards his “victims,” as Mr. Crabbe calls
them, in the manner he has chosen to describe. After all, if the picture were
true to nature, what claim would it have to be called poetry? At the best, it
is the meanest kind of satire, except the merely personal. The sum of all is,
that nineteen out of twenty of Crabbe’s pictures are
mere matters of fact, with which the Muses have just about as 50 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
much to do as they have with a collection of medical reports or of law
cases.
‘How comes it that you never favour these mountains
with a visit? You ask how I have been employed. You do me too much honour, and
I wish I could reply to the question with any satisfaction. I have written
since I saw you about 500 lines of my long Poem, which is all I have done. What
are you doing? My wife and sister desire to be remembered by you, and believe
me, my dear sir,
‘With great truth, yours,
‘We are here all in a rage about the Convention in
Portugal. If Sir Hew were to show
his face among us, or that other doughty knight, Sir Arthur, the very boys would hiss them out of the
Vale.’
The long poem Wordsworth had then in
hand was ‘The Excursion,’
from which he seems, after writing to Rogers, to
have turned aside to give vent to his rage in a pamphlet on ‘The Convention of Cintra,’ and to express other
feelings in two noble sonnets on the same subject.
A short note from Rogers to Richard Sharp curiously illustrates one of the differences
between those days and our own. Sharp writes to ask
Rogers to go down to Mickleham that they might go together to
Leatherhead fair. Rogers replies on the 6th of October,
1808—
‘I shall have great pleasure in accepting your kind
invitation. Who can resist round-abouts and see-saws, and gilt gingerbread and
King Holofernes? I cannot for
one. Do you go on horseback? If
you do, perhaps we can meet on the road. I hope the sun will shine upon us.
‘If I don’t enlist at the fair, it is my
intention to go on to Brighton on Wednesday.’
He seems to have gone on to Brighton as he intended, and a letter to his
sister Sarah contains glimpses of some interesting
people—
‘When I received your kind letter, my dear Sarah, I felt a strong wish to answer it
directly, but at that time Mrs. M. was writing, and I have
since put it off from time to time—I am sure I don’t know
why—for I never feel more pleasure than when I sit down to write to you.
I did indeed fear you would be cruelly disappointed. [He then refers at some
length to a picture about which this cruel disappointment had been experienced,
and continues.] But the pen-drawing done in the Temple, slight as it is, is
however something to remember by. It was done as you sat, and it tells you how
you used to sit together, and there are some circumstances about it, my dear,
dear Sarah, that would make me value it more than any
picture. I rejoice to hear you are passing your time
comfortably—pleasantly, I hope. Perhaps you have left Quarry Bank and are
now at Cheadle. But I think it best to direct to Mrs.
Greg’s, to whom pray remember me very affectionately.
Henry, I thought, seemed to like his
journey pretty well, though he made it very short, and caught cold at Brighton,
as I have done.
52 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
I left town to go again to Leatherhead
fair, which was very pretty, though the day was not so fine as last year. I
dined afterwards at Norbury, and there met a Miss Barton,
a cousin of Mrs. Wm. Lock, who inquired
very particularly after you. She had seen you, I believe, at Cheadle.
Mrs. Lock’s booth cleared 50l. the first day. Mrs. Fox was
there; she had come over from St. Anne’s. Miss
Willoughby, she says, is very poorly. She says we must go to her
fair next year—and, indeed, I wish now we had paid her a visit. The next
night I dined and slept at Chart, Sir Charles
Talbot’s, and the day afterwards came here, riding all the
way (except one stage in a returned chaise). Alas! I met with a sad misfortune
the other day. I was walking the poor old mare very near my lodgings, when down
she came and cut her knees to the bone; but she kept her head erect, poor
thing! so I felt little or no shock, and I am happy to think she has never
thrown me in the fifteen years we have spent together. They say she will never
do again, so I must look out for some place of rest for her, if she is not
shot, like Golumpus and the other old worthies of
the family. I have been here a fortnight to-morrow, and have a very small house
in a street leading from the Marine Parade, which last is now very expensive,
and which is very gay on a fine day.
‘Before our old house there now stands a group of asses
and ponies for the idle and luxurious. My great resource is Lady Donegal and Miss
Godfrey, with whom I pass most of my time, though I have twice
dined with Lady Jersey, whose daughter is
still lingering, very cheerful, but with no chance of recovery. Every evening
she flatters herself that her feverish fit will not come on,
and then it comes. She does not leave her room. The
weather has been sunshiny but very cold, but now it is very forlorn indeed, and
nothing stirring but the winds and waves—a circumstance I am not sorry
for, as I seldom stir out but to catch cold. I am now reading the Italian
again, and am in the horrors of the Inquisition. I wish you were with me, but
wishing does no good. I sometimes go to the music on the Parade, but, as you
remember, it is a very cold place. Brighton at present is very full. The
warmest place is the front of the Marine Library, and a never-failing scene of
entertainment. The scarlet cloaks are innumerable. The Grattans are at Worthing, where they went the
week after they dined with us. Mr. G. is now with them.
They come here as soon as lodgings are cheaper. S.
Boddington has been there for six weeks with
Grace, and has just taken a house here in the New
Steyne. He is now in town, but she is here with her gourernante, and I have just been paying her a visit. She is really
growing, I think, a fineish girl, but she has a bad cold just now, and is
almost as deaf as her mother used to be. I have just received a letter from
Wm. Maltby. He stands for Porson’s place at the Institution,
“by the deliberate advice,” he says, “of those
who are most likely to know the disposition of the electors.” He
says he has daily communication with Henry on this subject. John
Mallet was here last week, but is now gone.
‘Westall has
been sketching boats and fishermen for a few days here; he went to-day.
Lady Donegal goes on Friday, and I go
on Monday to Glynde, a seat of Lord
Hampden’s near Lewes, for three or, four days, and then
return home. I once thought of Crewe and of
54 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
Cheadle, my
dear Sarah, but at present I feel
chilly and frightened at the thoughts of such an expedition. When do you mean
to come back to us? I hope the time won’t he long, but of the time
exactly you are not unfortunately complete mistress. Pray remember me very
particularly to all at Cheadle, about whom I feel just as warmly as I ever did,
notwithstanding the letter which I thought it my duty to write when acting in
my commercial character for others, as well as myself. The Prince is not here this season, but his stables
are nearly finished, and are exactly like one of those Indian mausoleums in
Daniel’s views. They are
really very pretty, and are done by Porden, who is building Lord
Grosvenor’s near you. Here is hunting, but I am now too
old for even such a part as I used to take in it. We have had a most miserable
supply of fish, but this place is now a town, shooting out in all directions
but one, where the sea presents a small obstacle. The George
Edisons are here. Farewell, my dear Sarah!
Pray write to me in town, and believe me to be,
‘Ever yours,
‘Henry wants
me to write to Parsons on his marriage: what am I to
say?’
A great part of the correspondence with Richard
Sharp during this part of Rogers’s life was devoted to the poem of Columbus. Rogers records in his
Commonplace Book that he was fourteen years at work upon this poem. This means that he
began it as soon as his ‘Epistle to a
Friend’ had been published in 1798, but did not finally issue it till
1812, and that during the
| LORD ERSKINE ON ROGERS'S POEMS | 55 |
whole of
that time he was more or less occupied with it. It was his custom in these days to read
parts of it to his friends, among whom it became a familiar topic of conversation. It is
mentioned in their letters to Rogers, who is constantly urged to
publish it. A characteristic letter from Erskine shows
not only the curiosity Columbus had excited, but the estimation
in which Rogers’s poetry was held by the most acute minds when
this century was young.
‘Dear Rogers,—As I have always great pleasure in visiting you, I
should have been sorry to be engaged (as I am) at York Place on Saturday if I
had not resolved not to come to St. James’s Place any
more till I see Columbus, as you promised long ago.
‘I had not read the Pleasures of Memory from the time of its
first publication till last week, and I cannot find words to tell you how
delighted I was with the reconsideration of its beauties. I admit that its
author ought to pause before he publishes, as it is not easy not to disappoint
those who, in the double sense of the expression, have the Pleasures of Memory; but let me see Columbus, and I will give you my opinion.
‘Yours ever,
There is a further testimony to the literary position Rogers occupied in the desire of Gifford to secure his assistance in the newly-established
Quarterly Review,
Gifford asked Hoppner to
conduct the negotiation which he opened in the following letter:—
56 |
ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
|
|
‘Dear Rogers,—You are too much a man of the world to embark in any
undertaking that has not received the sanction of public approbation. I can,
with a little more confidence, endeavour now to press you into the service of
the Quarterly Review, since the work increases in
circulation to an extent that much exceeds the expectation of the most sanguine
of the undertakers. It is the wish of the leaders of this Review that you would
assist in supporting it with your talents occasionally, leaving it to your own
choice to remain concealed, or to claim the honours of your pen. The work they
wish you to take in hand, at present, is Shee’s last publication, the notes to which I propose to examine in conjunction
with you. I am at present employed in dissecting Hayley’s Life of Romney, which is immediately wanted, and I have neither
health nor leisure enough to undertake both for the next number. Have the
goodness to inform me, in the course of a day or two, whether you are inclined,
or not, to accede to this proposal. It is at the express desire of G. Ellis and Gifford that I press you upon this subject.
‘The last week was an eventful one to me and my family.
I arrived on Saturday se’ennight at Hyde, after rather a fatiguing
journey on horseback. On Sunday I was with difficulty kept awake the whole day,
and went in consequence early to bed. About ten o’clock the same evening
Mrs. Hoppner found me on the floor,
and I lay from that time in a state of total insensibility for two nights and
two days. From this stupefaction I was
with difficulty roused, having cataplasm to my feet, a blister on my head,
and one on my back so large as to flay it from the shoulder to the loins. To
speak a truth, they used me like a horse, and I believe a less degree of
irritation would have [sufficed]. . . The blisters, however, did their business
so well that I was enabled to get downstairs on Thursday. On Friday I walked
down the town, that people might see I was not dead, as was reported. On
Saturday I rode on horseback, and to-day I feel better than I have done for
years. You may imagine all this appears to me like a dream. I have no
recollection of being taken ill, and can scarce credit my own feelings
sufficiently to persuade myself I am well.
‘I have more letters to write, and must therefore take
a hasty leave, requesting you to believe me,
‘Yours very faithfully,
‘Ryde, Isle of Wight: Monday.’
Rogers had met Hoppner at the house of his late brother-in-law, Sutton Sharpe. Hoppner, as his letter
indicates, was a very choleric person. He and Rogers were members of a
club called ‘The Council of Trent,’ because it consisted of thirty persons; and
on Rogers once proposing an artist whom Hoppner
disliked, he wrote him a letter of violent reproach and abuse. Hoppner
was the son of a German attendant at Windsor Castle, and in his boyhood had been a
chorister at the Royal Chapel. He and Gifford were
closely-attached friends, but their quarrels were the amusement of their acquaintances. He
was popular in society and was to be met everywhere, though, like Moore, he accepted invita-
58 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
tions to
great houses and left his wife to mope in solitude at home. He suffered from chronic
disease of the liver, and died a few months after the letter to Rogers
was written. Rogers declined to write for the Quarterly or to be associated with the
men who had founded it. He was opposed, moreover, to anonymous writing, and regarded
anonymous criticism as a kind of fighting in a mask. His only contribution to this kind of
literature was a part of a review of
Cary’s Dante in the Edinburgh Review.
A further testimony to Rogers’s
literary position is contained in the following letter.
‘My dear Rogers,—I am about to ask a great boon of you, which I shall
hold an especial courtesy if you can find in your heart to comply with. I have
hampered myself by a promise to a young
bookseller, whom I am for various reasons desirous to befriend,
that I would look over and make additions to a little miscellany of poetry
which he has entitled “English Minstrelsy,” and on which his brother, James Ballantyne, the Scottish Bodoni, intends to exert the utmost extent of
his typographical skill. The selection is chiefly from the smaller pieces of
dead authors, but it would be very imperfect without a few specimens from the
present Masters of the Lyre. I have never told you how high my opinion, so far
as it is worth anything, ranks you in that honoured class. But I am now called
on to say, in my own personal vindication, that no collection of the kind can
be completed without a specimen from the author of the Pleasures of
——,1
and therefore to transfer all responsibility from myself to you, I make the
present application. Beggars should not be choosers; therefore I most
generously abandon to you the choice of what you will give my begging-box, and
am only importunate that you will not turn me empty from your door. I would not
willingly exert my influence with you in vain, nor have my Miscellany so
imperfect as it will be without something of yours.
‘Why won’t you think of coming to see our lands
of mist and snow? Not that I have the hardness of heart to wish you and
George Ellis here at this moment,
for it would be truly the meeting of the weird sisters in thunder, lightning,
and in rain. The lightning splintered an oak here before my door last week with
such a concussion that I thought all was gone to wrack. I have pretty good
nerves for one of the irritable and sensitive race we belong to, but I question
whether even the poet laureate would have confided composedly in the sic evitabile fulmen annexed to his
wreath of bays.
‘Believe me, dear
Rogers,
‘Ever yours most sincerely,
‘Ashestiel by Selkirk: 18 August [1809].’
In answer to this letter Rogers seems
to have sent a copy of the small poem,
addressed to the Duchess of St. Albans,2 on the death of her sister, the
wife of James,
1 The word ‘Hope’ is crossed out in the MS.,
but no other word is substituted for it. It should be ‘Pleasures of Memory.’ 2 In the Poems the stanzas have only the heading ‘To . . .,’ with a
note at the bottom of the page, ‘on the death of her sister.’ |
60 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
afterwards Viscount Macduff, who
died at Edinburgh—of a fever it was said at the time—in December, 1805. The
lines ‘On a Voice that had been
Lost’ belong to the same period. They were addressed to Miss Crewe, who, as we learn from Scott’s letter, lost two notes of her voice in a visit to Scotland in
the winter of the same year. The following is Scott’s letter of acknowledgment for
the poem on Mrs. Duff—
‘Accept my best thanks, my dear Rogers, for your letter with the beautiful
enclosure, a delightful though a melancholy tribute to the fate of poor
Mrs. Duff, with whom I had the pleasure
to be acquainted. I dined in company with her during the time that the hidden
infection was in her veins, and have often since reflected upon her manner and
conversation during the course of that day. She mentioned the story of the dog
repeatedly (indeed, it seemed to hang upon her spirits), but never dropt the
slightest hint of his having bitten, or rather grazed, the skin of her face. It
is a melancholy recollection, and your pathetic verses have awakened it very
strongly. Many thanks to you, however, for the gratification they have afforded
me, though chastened by these sad reflections.
‘I rejoice to hear that you are coming forth soon. I
hope your little jewel, the Columbiad, is at length to be drawn out of the portfolio and given
to the press. I also hope to meet with another old and admired acquaintance,
the copy of verses addressed to Miss
Crewe when she lost two notes of her voice in our rude climate. Pray
do not
linger too long over your
proof-sheets, but let us soon see what we have long longed to see.
‘I have been deeply concerned for Mr. Canning’s wound;1 he is one of the few, very few, statesmen who unite an ardent
spirit of patriotism to the talents necessary to render that living spirit
efficient, and I don’t see how the present ministry can stand without
him. That, however, would be the least of my regrets were I certain that his
health was restored.
‘The weather here has been dreary indeed, seldom two
good days in continuance, and though not much afraid of rain in any moderate
quantity, I have been almost obliged, like Hamlet, to forego a custom of my exercise, and amuse myself
within doors the best way I can, in the course of which seclusion I have, of
course, blotted much paper.
‘Believe me, dear Rogers, ever your truly obliged,
‘Ashestiel: 4th October, 1809.’
This letter, written nearly three years after the event, gives the only
indication of the circumstances which made Mrs.
Duff’s death peculiarly painful, and explains the line—
That in her veins a secret horror slept. |
One of the few letters from Luttrell
which have been preserved illustrates the sort of life Rogers and his friends were living. It is a fit introduction of his name
1 Canning’s duel with Lord
Castlereagh took place on the 21st of September.
Canning was wounded in the thigh, but on the 11th of
October he had so far recovered as to be able to attend the levee held on that day
and to give up the seals of office. |
62 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
into Rogers’s biography, though it suggests
the association of Rogers with Luttrell’s
schemes of amusement. Rogers had a high opinion of
Luttrell’s talent, spoke of him as a pleasant companion and
brilliant talker, and expressed regret that he gave up nearly all his time to people of
fashion.
‘Brocket Hall: Wednesday, Sept. 20 [1809].
‘My dear Rogers,—It is singular enough that just as your letter was
put into my hands, I had determined to write to you by this day’s post.
Now, and at all times, I feel flattered and happy to be associated in any
scheme of amusement or any arrangement of society with you, and I was, with
this object in view, preparing to communicate my autumnal movements and to
inquire into yours. I am desired, on the part of Lord and Lady Cowper, to
say that they will be most happy to receive you at Panshanger as soon as they
remove there, which will be very early in the next month. Our intended progress
in the meantime is as follows. From hence to town on Friday, on Monday next to
Woolbeding for four or five days, and thence to Petworth for two or three,
after which the Cowpers certainly return to Panshanger,
where they will remain for the rest of October. Now what I should like, if it
suits you, would be to meet you at the Deepdene on my return from Petworth,
and, having paid our visit there, return with you to London for a couple of
days. We might then start together for Panshanger. I hold myself in a manner
pledged to Hope, deeming it as ungracious
not to accept as not to
give a second invitation, as the natural conclusion to
be drawn from both is the same, that, on trial, the parties have not been
pleased with each other. Yet I should not choose to encounter him alone, as the
apprehension of his embarrassment would embarrass me. As it is possible I may
be in town even to-morrow, pray let a few lines be deposited in my letter-box
at Albany to say how far the arrangement I here propose can be made to square
with your convenience. If it should not suit, I am, after the Woolbeding and
Petworth visits are spun off my reel, quite at your disposal for any other that
may be more agreeable to you.
‘I hope you have not quite abandoned your intention of
a trip to Tunbridge, before the possibility of fine weather is extinct, as I
have a most longing desire to see the lions of the Pantiles under your
auspices. This I would do either after or before Panshanger at your option. God
bless you, and believe me, my dear Rogers,
‘Ever most truly yours,
‘Am I justified or no in considering the
occasional address attempted to be spoken at the opening of C. G.
Theatre1 as the very worst copy of verses in
any language, and the following line—
Solid our building, heavy our expense— |
1 The new theatre was opened on Monday the
17th of September. The address was spoken by John Kemble in the midst of an
uproar which made it entirely inaudible. It contained fifty lines.
The last four were: ‘Solid our building, heavy our expense, We rest our claim on your munificence— What ardour plans a nation’s taste to raise, A nation’s liberality repays.’ |
|
64 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
as the worst in it, and consequently the worst in the
world, as I am inclined to do, nisi quid tu
docte Trebati dissentis’?
This literary and other correspondence completely exhibits the position of
consideration and esteem which Rogers had attained
at the close of the first decade of the nineteenth century. His social position may be
illustrated by a brief letter addressed to him in the summer of 1810.
‘Kensington: Sunday, 19 August [1810].
‘Dear Mr.
Rogers,—I am commanded by H.R.H. the Princess of Wales to say she will call for you
in St. James’s Place to-morrow evening at eight o’clock to take you
to the play.
‘Pray believe me happy to give you these gracious
commands, and allow me to say that I am very sincerely yours,
Sir Robert Adair (1763-1855)
English diplomat; he was Whig MP for Appleby (1799-1802) and Camelford (1802-12), a
friend and disciple of Charles James Fox, and ambassador to Constantinople, 1809-10. He was
ridiculed by Canning and Ellis in
The Rovers.
Joanna Baillie (1762-1851)
Scottish poet and dramatist whose
Plays on the Passions
(1798-1812) were much admired, especially the gothic
De Montfort,
produced at Drury Lane in 1800.
James Ballantyne (1772-1833)
Edinburgh printer in partnership with his younger brother John; the company failed in the
financial collapse of 1826.
John Ballantyne (1774-1821)
Edinburgh publisher and literary agent for Walter Scott; he was the younger brother of
the printer James Ballantyne.
Anna Laetitia Barbauld [née Aikin] (1743-1825)
English poet and essayist, the sister of John Aikin, who married Rochemont Barbauld in
1774 and taught at Palgrave School, a dissenting academy (1774-85).
Samuel Boddington (1766-1843)
West India merchant in partnership with Richard “Conversation” Sharp; he was a Whig MP
for Tralee (1807). Samuel Rogers and Sydney Smith was a friend.
Giambattista Bodoni (1740-1813)
Italian printer who designed the neoclassical typeface that bears his name; he published
Manuale tipografico (1788).
William Sturges Bourne (1769-1845)
Tory politician educated at Winchester and Christ Church, Oxford; he was MP for Hastings
(1798-1802), Christchurch (1802-12, 1818-26), Bandon (1815-18), Ashburton (1826-30), and
Milborne Port (1830-31).
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 Francis Burdett, fifth baronet (1770-1844)
Whig MP for Westminster (1807-1837) who was imprisoned on political charges in 1810 and
again in 1820; in the 1830s he voted with the Conservatives.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Irish politician and opposition leader in Parliament, author of
On the
Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and
Reflections on the Revolution
in France (1790).
Lady Charlotte Susan Maria Bury [née Campbell] (1775-1861)
Scottish novelist, daughter of John Campbell, fifth duke of Argyll; in 1791 she married
John Campbell of Shawfield and Islay (1796) and in 1818 Edward John Bury; she was
lady-in-waiting to Queen Caroline (1809) and published
Diary illustrative
of the Times of George IV (1838). Thomas Creevey described her as “a very handsome
woman and somewhat loose.”
George Canning (1770-1827)
Tory statesman; he was foreign minister (1807-1809) and prime minister (1827); a
supporter of Greek independence and Catholic emancipation.
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.
Henry Francis Cary (1772-1844)
English poet; he was assistant-keeper of printed books at the British Museum (1826) and
translator of Dante (1805-19).
Anna May Chichester, marchioness of Donegall [née May] (d. 1849)
The illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward May, second baronet; she married Sir George
Augustus Chichester, second marquess of Donegall in 1795. In 1815 it was revealed that she
was under-age at the time of her marriage.
John Courtenay (1738-1816)
Whig politician who supported Fox against Burke in the dispute over the French
Revolution; he wrote
Philosophical Reflections on the late Revolution in
France and the Conduct of the Dissenters in England (1790).
Emily Mary Cowper, countess Cowper [née Lamb] (1787-1869)
Whig hostess, the daughter of Sir Peniston Lamb, first Viscount Melbourne; she married
(1) in 1805 Sir Peter Leopold Louis Francis Nassau Cowper, fifth Earl Cowper, and (2) in
1839, her long-time lover, Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston.
George Crabbe (1754-1832)
English poet renowned for his couplet verse and gloomy depictions of country persons and
places; author of the
The Village (1783),
The
Parish Register (1807),
The Borough (1810), and
Tales of the Hall (1819).
Hon. Elizabeth Emma Cunliffe-Offley [née Crewe] (1780-1850)
The daughter of John Crewe, first Baron Crewe, and Lady Frances Crewe; in 1799 she
married Foster Cunliffe-Offley (1782-32). Maria Edgeworth described her as “very
agreeable and though not regularly handsome, very pleasing in countenance and
person.”
William Daniell (1769-1837)
Landscape painter and engraver who worked in India; he published
Oriental Scenery (1795-1808). In 1801 Daniell married Mary, the sister of Richard
Westall.
John Dryden (1631-1700)
English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of
Of Dramatick
Poesie (1667),
Absalom and Achitophel (1681),
Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697),
The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and
Fables (1700).
James Duff, fourth earl of Fife (1776-1857)
Son of the third earl (d. 1811); after study at Westminster and Oxford he fought at the
Battle of Talavera, was Major-General in the Spanish Army, and was Tory MP for Banffshire
(1818-27).
Alexander Dyce (1798-1869)
Editor and antiquary, educated at Edinburgh High School and Exeter College, Oxford; he
published
Recollections of the Table-Talk of Samuel Rogers
(1856).
George Ellis (1753-1815)
English antiquary and critic, editor of
Specimens of Early English
Poets (1790), friend of Walter Scott.
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).
Edwin Wilkins Field (1804-1871)
The law-partner of William Sharpe and husband of Mary Sharpe, Samuel Rogers's nephew and
niece. He was an enthusiastic artist who assisted Henry Crabb Robinson in forming the
Flaxman Gallery at University College, London.
Lord Edward Fitzgerald (1763-1798)
After serving in the American war and becoming an Iroquois chieftain he became a leader
of the United Irishmen and was killed during the 1798 rebellion. His life was written by
Thomas Moore (1831).
Pamela Fitzgerald (1776 c.-1831)
The illegitimate daughter of Madame de Genlis; she married the Irish revolutionary Edward
Fitzgerald in 1792; after his death in 1798 she lived on the Continent.
Richard Fitzpatrick (1748-1813)
English military officer, politician, and poet allied with Fox and Sheridan in
Parliament; he was secretary of state for war (1783, 1806) and author of
Dorinda, a Town Eclogue (1775).
Charles James Fox (1749-1806)
Whig statesman and the leader of the Whig opposition in Parliament after his falling-out
with Edmund Burke.
Elizabeth Bridget Armistead Fox [née Cane] (1750-1842)
English courtesan who succeeded Mary Robinson in the affections of the Prince of Wales;
she was secretly married to Charles James Fox in 1795; the marriage was publicly
acknowledged in 1802.
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.
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).
Mary Godfrey (1836 fl.)
The half-sister of the husband of Anna May Chichester, Lady Donegal; Miss Godfrey was one
of Thomas Moore's correspondents.
Granville Leveson- Gower, first earl Granville (1773-1846)
English diplomat and ally of George Canning; he was ambassador to St Petersburg (1804-06,
1807) and ambassador to Paris (1824-1828). The Duchess of Devonshire described him as “the
Adonis of his day.”
Henry Grattan (1746-1820)
Irish statesman and patriot; as MP for Dublin he supported Catholic emancipation and
opposed the Union.
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).
Robert Grosvenor, first marquess of Westminster (1767-1845)
Of Eaton Hall, one of William Gifford's early patrons; he was a connoisseur of painting,
a Whig MP, and commissioner of the Board of Control. He was created Marquess of Westminster
in 1831.
William Hayley (1745-1820)
English poet, patron of George Romney, William Cowper, and William Blake. His best-known
poem,
Triumphs of Temper (1781) was several times reprinted. Robert
Southey said of him, “everything about that man is good except his poetry.”
Samuel Heywood (1753-1828)
English barrister, serjeant-at-law (1794) and chief justice of the Carmarthen circuit
(1807-28); he was a friend and associate of Charles James Fox.
Hippocrates (460 BC c.-370 BC c.)
Greek physician who founded the practice of medicine on an empirical basis.
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Thomas Hope (1769-1831)
Art collector and connoisseur, the son of a wealthy Amsterdam merchant and author of the
novel
Anastasius (1819) which some thought to be a work by Byron.
His literary executor was William Harness.
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.
John Hoppner (1758-1810)
English portrait painter and member of the Royal Academy (1795); he was a close friend of
William Gifford and the father of Byron's correspondent Richard Belgrave Hoppner.
Phoebe Hoppner [née Wright] (1761-1827)
The daughter of Joseph Wright and the wax sculptor Patience Wright (1725-1786); in 1781
she married the painter John Hoppner.
George Howard, sixth earl of Carlisle (1773-1848)
Son of the fifth earl (d. 1825); he was educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, wrote
for the
Anti-Jacobin, and was MP for Morpeth (1795-1806) and
Cumberland (1806-28).
Elizabeth Inchbald (1753-1821)
English actress and playwright; author of two popular novels,
A Simple
Story (1791) and
Nature and Art (1796).
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.
John Philip Kemble (1757-1823)
English actor renowned for his Shakespearean roles; he was manager of Drury Lane
(1783-1802) and Covent Garden (1803-1808).
William Lamb, second viscount Melbourne (1779-1848)
English statesman, the son of Lady Melbourne (possibly by the third earl of Egremont) and
husband of Lady Caroline Lamb; he was a Whig MP, prime minister (1834-41), and counsellor
to Queen Victoria.
Elizabeth Lock [née Jennings] (1781-1846)
The daughter of the art collector Henry Constantine (Dog) Jennings (1731-1819); in 1800
she married the painter and connoisseur William Lock.
Henry Luttrell (1768-1851)
English wit, dandy, and friend of Thomas Moore and Samuel Rogers; he was the author of
Advice to Julia, a Letter in Rhyme (1820).
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).
James Maitland, eighth earl of Lauderdale (1759-1839)
Scottish peer allied with Charles James Fox; he was author of
An
Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, and into the Means and causes of
its Increase (1804) and other works on political economy.
William Maltby (1764-1854)
A schoolmate and life-long friend of Samuel Rogers; he was a London solicitor and a
member of the King of Clubs. In 1809 he succeeded Richard Porson as principal librarian of
the London Institution.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
Horatio Nelson, viscount Nelson (1758-1805)
Britain's naval hero who destroyed the French fleet in the Battle of the Nile (1798) and
defeated the combined French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar (1805) in which action he was
killed.
William Pitt the younger (1759-1806)
The second son of William Pitt, earl of Chatham (1708-1778); he was Tory prime minister
1783-1801.
Richard Porson (1759-1808)
Classical scholar and Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge (1792); he edited four plays
of Euripides.
William Porden (1755-1822)
English architect and father of the poet Eleanor Anne Porden; a student of James Wyatt,
he did work for Royal Pavilion at Brighton.
Sir Uvedale Price, first baronet (1747-1829)
Of Foxley in Herefordshire; he was educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, and
published
Essay on the Picturesque (1794).
Henry Rogers (1774-1832)
Son of Thomas Rogers (1735-93) and youngest brother of the poet Thomas Rogers; he was the
head of the family bank, Rogers, Towgood, and Co. until 1824, and a friend of Charles
Lamb.
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).
Sarah Rogers (1772-1855)
Of Regent's Park. the younger sister of the poet Samuel Rogers; she lived with her
brother Henry in Highbury Terrace.
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 Scott, first earl of Eldon (1751-1838)
Lord chancellor (1801-27); he was legal counsel to the Prince of Wales and an active
opponent of the Reform Bill.
Richard Sharp [Conversation Sharp] (1759-1835)
English merchant, Whig MP, and member of the Holland House set; he published
Letters and Essays in Poetry and Prose (1834).
Catherine Sharpe (1782-1853)
The daughter of Sutton Sharpe by his first wife Catharine Purchase (d. 1791).
Daniel Sharpe (1806-1856)
The son of Sutton Sharpe and nephew of the poet Samuel Rogers; he was a London merchant
and eminent geologist.
Henry Sharpe (1802-1873)
The son of Sutton Sharpe and nephew of the poet Samuel Rogers; he was a businessman and
philanthropist.
Maria Sharpe [née Rogers] (1771-1806)
The sister of the poet Samuel Rogers and second wife of the brewer Sutton Sharpe
(1756-1806).
Samuel Sharpe (1799-1881)
Banker and Egyptologist; he was the nephew of the poet Samuel Rogers and brother of the
geologist Daniel Sharpe.
Sutton Sharpe (1756-1806)
A London brewer whose second marriage (1795) was to Maria, sister of the poet Samuel
Rogers. He studied art at the Royal Academy and counted among his friends Flaxman, Opie,
and Bewick.
William Sharpe (1804-1870)
London solicitor, the son of Sutton Sharpe and nephew of the poet Samuel Rogers, whose
Reminiscences (1859) he edited.
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).
Sarah Siddons [née Kemble] (1755-1831)
English tragic actress, sister of John Philip Kemble, famous roles as Desdemona, Lady
Macbeth, and Ophelia. She retired from the stage in 1812.
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
Friend of David Hume and professor of logic at Glasgow University (1751); he wrote
Theory of the Moral Sentiments (1759) and
The
Wealth of Nations (1776).
William Smith (1756-1835)
Educated at the dissenting academy at Daventry, he was a Whig MP for Sudbury (1784-90,
1796-1802), Camelford (1790-96), and Norwich (1802-30), a defender of Joseph Priestley and
follower of Charles Fox. His 1817 speech in Parliament denouncing Robert Southey attracted
much attention.
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
William Robert Spencer (1770-1834)
English wit and author of society verse. He was the son of Lord Charles Spencer, second
son of the third duke of Marlborough, educated at Harrow and Christ Church, Oxford. Spencer
was a friend of Fox, Sheridan, and the Prince of Wales.
Edward Smith Stanley, twelfth earl of Derby (1752-1834)
Grandson of the eleventh earl (d. 1776); educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge,
he was a Whig MP for Lancashire, a friend of Charles James Fox, nephew of John Burgoyne,
and a committed sportsman.
William Stone (1796 fl.)
London coal merchant and member of Friends of the People; in January 1796 he was tried
and acquitted of treason, after which he emigrated to France.
Sir Charles Talbot, second baronet (1751-1812)
Of Chart Park in Surrey; he was MP for Weobley (1800-02), Rye (1803-06), and Bletchingly
(1812); he died unmarried and his estate was annexed to Thomas Hope's Deepdene.
Henry John Temple, third viscount Palmerston (1784-1865)
After education at Harrow and Edinburgh University he was MP for Newport (1807-11) and
Cambridge University (1811-31), foreign minister (1830-41), and prime minister (1855-58,
1859-65).
John Horne Tooke (1736-1812)
Philologist and political radical; member of the Society for Constitutional Information
(1780); tried for high treason and acquitted (1794).
John Bernard Trotter (1775-1818)
Irish writer who was private secretary to Charles James Fox; he published
Memoirs of the latter years of the Right Honourable Charles James
Fox (1811).
Gilbert Wakefield (1756-1801)
Unitarian scholar and controversialist who taught at Warrington and Hackney; he was
imprisoned for a seditious pamphlet (1799-1801).
John William Ward, earl of Dudley (1781-1833)
The son of William Ward, third Viscount Dudley (d. 1823); educated at Edinburgh and
Oxford, he was an English MP, sometimes a Foxite Whig and sometimes Canningite Tory, who
suffered from insanity in his latter years.
Richard Westall (1765-1836)
English poet and illustrator who favored literary subjects and published a collection of
verse,
A Day in Spring and other Poems (1808).
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.
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
With Coleridge, author of
Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth
survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.
The Examiner. (1808-1881). Founded by John and Leigh Hunt, this weekly paper divided its attention between literary
matters and radical politics; William Hazlitt was among its regular contributors.
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.
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
Concerning the Relations of Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal, to each other,
and to the common Enemy, at this Crisis; and specifically as affected by the Convention of
Cintra the whole brought to the Test of those Principles, by which alone the Independence
and Freedom of Nations can be preserved or recovered. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 1809). Originally published in
The Courier.