CHARACTER OF ALGERNON SYDNEY.
(Vol. v., pp. 426. 447.)
Your two correspondents C. E. D. (p. 426.) and C. (p. 447.) appear to have read Mr. Hepworth Dixon's Query about Algernon Sydney either very hastily or very carelessly. Yet it seems to me plain enough. There is not one word in it about Barillon or Dalrymple; no inquiry about the home life of Sydney. As every one knows a great part of his time was spent abroad, it is probable Mr. Dixon thinks that anecdotes and allusions to so conspicuous a person may occur in the cotemporary letters and memoirs of France, Germany, Italy, &c., and he asks for references to any such anecdotes or allusions as may have fallen in the way of readers of "N. & Q." Surely this is explicit. But what has Dalrymple or Mr. Croker to say in answer to a question about Sydney's way of life when abroad? That, as I take it, was the point, and a general discussion as to the character of the author of the Discourses on Government is à-propos of nothing. As the subject has been opened, and as I know of none more interesting in the whole range of English history, I cannot refrain from at least entering one protest against C.'s description of the "illustrious patriot" as a "corrupt traitor of the worst class."
That Mr. Dixon is not single in his admiration of the character of Sydney I could quote many "instances," from our late prime minister downwards. But the title "illustrious" can scarcely be denied to a man who, besides being of the best blood in England, played a leading part in the Revolution, and was one of the closest thinkers and most masculine writers our language has to show. What makes a man illustrious? Birth, commanding position, intellect, learning, literary genius? Sydney had them all. But C. thinks
he ought not to be called a patriot. What, do his wisdom and moderation in the civil war; his opposition to the extreme measures of Cromwell; his long solitary exile; his glorious death, count for nothing? There is, however, the charge of taking money from the King of France. No doubt this is a very "curious case," and I too shall be anxious to see "what light Mr. Dixon may be able to throw on it." The accusation rests on the sole authority of Dalrymple; and Dalrymple is not a man who can be taken on his mere word. He was a violent partisan. He hated the Whigs, and is convicted of having suppressed the truth, when it suited his party or his passions to misrepresent. The Barillon Correspondence should be again examined, and, if possible, further particulars of the money payments to our party leaders obtained.
S. Walton.
Belgrave Square.