FOOTNOTES:
[1] This was in 1828; at the return of the writer to England, in 1833, there was a gallery in the House of Lords, and it is hardly necessary to say, that, since that time, both houses have been burnt.
[2] Esquires were formerly created by patent.
[3] A little of this feeling is getting up in Paris, under the new order of things, which favour the pretensions of money, but France is in the transition state, and it is too soon to predict the result.
[4] In consequence of the delay in publishing these “gleanings,” the writer is often doubtful whether he ought to indulge such prophecies. These words, however, were actually written in 1828.
[5] This lady is just dead, in her ninety-ninth year.
[6] George III. was born in this house. See Wraxall.
[7] Now Sutherland-house; the Marquis of Stafford having been raised to the rank of Duke of Sutherland.
[8] Mr. Washington Alston was once asked, “what is a scirocco?” The celebrated painter pithily described it, as a “Boston east-wind BOILED.” It is a great advantage to be able to take the spring weather of London raw; and raw enough it is, of a verity.
[9] Sir Nicholas Wraxall, in his Posthumous Memoirs of his Own Times, has probably given the true version of this tale. A person of the name of Philipps was denied a request to have a carriage-road from the park to his door, and to soften the refusal, Mr. Pitt offered him an Irish peerage, which he accepted. One hears of many grounds for an illustration, but this is the queerest on record; that of ennobling a man “because a carriage-sweep may not be made between St. James’s Park and his door!—Comme vous violà bâti!”
[10] Jack was shortly after made Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[11] “Decoration” is the proper word, I believe, for the badges of an order; the French, however, frequently term them crachats, or le crachat du roi, the king’s spittle!
[12] Je la revois enfin, et rien n’y est changé, si ce n’est qu’il s’y trouve un Français de plus.
[13] 1828.
[14] Coupling this conversation with subsequent knowledge, the writer has been induced to think that Sir Walter Scott, at that time, was not aware of the extent of his own liabilities. He mentioned a sum that was greatly short of that reported to be due, soon after his death, and which held an equitable lien on the estate of Abbotsford.
[15] A man who has since filled one of the highest offices under the French government.
[16] The writer had a ludicrous specimen of this feeling, at a later day, in Italy. An English minister’s wife gave a great ball, and applications were constantly made for tickets. As the town was small, this ball made a great sensation, and every one was talking of it. It was no great sacrifice for the family of the writer to preserve their self-respect on this occasion, as they lived retired from choice. Hints began to be thrown out, and questions asked if they had yet procured tickets. At eight o’clock of the very night of the entertainment, these important tickets arrived unasked! Of course, no notice was taken of them. It will be remembered that all this dog-in-the-mangerism had nothing to do with the customs of the country in which the parties were, it being usual for the natives to give their guests more than two hours’ notice, when they wished to see them at balls. This social convoitise on one side, and coquetry on the other, distinguish the English circles all over Europe.
[17] This arrangement was subsequently changed.
[18] Even in the parliament of 1832, I find no less than seventy-four of the eldest sons and heirs of peers, sitting as commoners. Among them are Lords Surrey, Tavistock, Worcester, Douro, Graham, Mandeville, and Chandos. All of whom are the eldest sons of Dukes. In the parliament of 1830, were also Lords Seymour, Euston, and Blandford, of the same rank.
[19] Just before the writer left England, the Lords threw out the bill for the repeal of the Test Laws. Shortly after, the matter was brought up anew, and the authorities of orthodox Oxford were assembled to petition against the measure. On the day of meeting, however, to the astonishment of every body, speeches were made in favour of the repeal by several prominent men. Of course the petition was for repeal, for party is just as well drilled in Europe as it is with us.
A few months later, I had the whole secret explained. A leading dissenter, now a member of parliament, told me that he and his friends gave the government to understand distinctly, that if the Test Laws were not repealed, the dissenters of England would make common cause with the Catholics of Ireland, and overturn the establishment.
The following anecdote is also derived from the best authority. About the time nullification was rife in America, a gentleman, also in parliament, went from London to a dinner in the country. He found the Right Rev. Lord Bishop of ——, among the company. “What news do you bring us from town, Mr. ——?” asked the consecrated christian. “No news, my Lord.” “No news! We were told there was good news.” “To what do you allude, my Lord?” “Why, we were told there is every reason to expect a speedy dissolution of the American Union.”
[20] In 1830-31, when England was menaced with revolution, the English travellers on the Continent of Europe, hurried back to their own country, to be at their posts.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
[Pg iii]: ‘such an an effort’ replaced by ‘such an effort’.
[Pg 13]: ‘the gensdarmes’ replaced by ‘the gendarmes’.
[Pg 48]: ‘of his philanthopy’ replaced by ‘of his philanthropy’.
[Pg 69]: ‘and the colonade’ replaced by ‘and the colonnade’.
[Pg 70]: ‘the monstrocity of’ replaced by ‘the monstrosity of’.
[Pg 73]: ‘frequently saying’ replaced by ‘frequently staying’.
[Pg 75]: ‘of the colonades’ replaced by ‘of the colonnades’.
[Pg 79]: ‘of their side’ replaced by ‘on their side’.
[Pg 83]: ‘within a forthnight’ replaced by ‘within a fortnight’.
[Pg 84]: ‘Berkley Square’ replaced by ‘Berkeley Square’.
[Pg 104]: ‘and bonhommie’ replaced by ‘and bonhomie’.
[Pg 112]: ‘Berkely Square’ replaced by ‘Berkeley Square’.
[Pg 131]: ‘staticians frequently’ replaced by ‘statisticians frequently’.
[Pg 131]: ‘but an orignal’ replaced by ‘but an original’.
[Pg 135]: ‘were octagenarians’ replaced by ‘were octogenarians’.
[Pg 135]: ‘incontestible claims’ replaced by ‘incontestable claims’.
[Pg 139]: ‘Northumbeland-house’ replaced by ‘Northumberland-house’.
[Pg 141]: ‘Portman, Berkely’ replaced by ‘Portman, Berkeley’.
[Pg 148]: ‘that is exhilirating’ replaced by ‘that is exhilarating’.
[Pg 150]: ‘and a bouyancy’ replaced by ‘and a buoyancy’.
[Pg 151]: ‘think the the taste’ replaced by ‘think the taste’.
[Pg 151]: ‘is much covetted’ replaced by ‘is much coveted’.
[Pg 158]: ‘all bonhommie’ replaced by ‘all bonhomie’.
[Pg 160]: ‘chaiss longues’ replaced by ‘chaises longues’.
[Pg 170]: ‘Berkely Square’ replaced by ‘Berkeley Square’.
[Pg 187]: ‘English [unclear] parliament’ replaced by ‘English of parliament’.
[Pg 192]: ‘attornies in fact’ replaced by ‘attorneys in fact’.
[Pg 195]: ‘fate which befals’ replaced by ‘fate which befalls’.
[Pg 202]: ‘coquetishly set’ replaced by ‘coquettishly set’.
[Pg 217]: ‘of the r. r. rs.’ replaced by ‘of the rs’.
[Pg 228]: ‘appeared fidgetty’ replaced by ‘appeared fidgety’.
[Pg 230]: ‘wild pidgeons’ replaced by ‘wild pigeons’.
[Pg 236]: ‘one great resaon,’ replaced by ‘one great reason’.
[Pg 246]: ‘rely no their’ replaced by ‘rely on their’.
[Pg 247]: the heading ‘LETTER XIV.’ replaced by ‘LETTER XIII.’
(no text is missing but the numbering was incorrect).