George Selwyn: His Letters and His Life

by George Augustus Selwyn

(153) For the better regulation of Civil Establishments, and of certain public offices, and for the limitation of pensions, and the suppression of certain useless, expensive, and inconvenient places.

(154) John Townshend (1757-1833); second son of the fourth Viscount and first Marquis of Townshend. He was returned for the University of Cambridge in 1780, and lost his seat in 1784 when Pitt was elected.

(155) See Storer's letterbelow: "Anthony Storer to Lord Carlisle," (1781), Feb. 28.

(156) George John, afterwards second Earl Spencer, K.G. (1758-1834); married March 6, 1781, Lavinia, daughter of the first Earl of Lucan.

Anthony Storer to Lord Carlisle.

(1781), Feb. 28.—I have not wrote to you so often as perhaps I ought to do, and as I really wish, because in regard to everything that passes on this side the water at present, the newspaper is a very authentic chronicle. The debates in Parliament are not frequent, and when they do happen Mr. Woodfall reports them very much at large, and almost always faithfully. In regard to the chronique scandaleuse, there is no occasion for any report, as the Session seems a maiden one. These two heads, which Selwyn does not in general interfere with, I should have thought fell under my department, and I should certainly [have] told you all I knew but for the reasons which I have given. I take it for granted Selwyn writes to you principally about Lord Morpeth, as I perceive he is in general uppermost in his thoughts, and the subject on which he converses le plus volontiers avec moi. Le seul bien qui nous rests, &c.

We had a debate on Monday, when Mr. Pitt for the first time made such a speech, that it excited the admiration very justly of every man in the House. Except he had foreseen the particular species of nonsense which Lord Nugent was to utter, his speech could not be prepared; it was delivered without any kind of improper assurance, but with the exact proper self-possession which ought to accompany a speaker. There was not a word or a look which one would have wished to correct. This, I believe, in general was the universal sense of all those who heard him, and exactly the effect which his speech had on me, at the time I heard it.

Mr. Sheridan did very well; he said a very (few) words in answer to Mr. Courtenay, each word being exactly placed where it ought to be—quasi tesserata emblemate—as if he had studied them a week beforehand, and had read them instead of speaking them. His harvest at the Opera House is likely to be very successful, for his Saturdays and Tuesdays are so full, that he is going even to attempt the Thursdays. Vestris' Ballet people think too long. "It is impossible that an English audience should be satisfied. They don't know when they have got a good spectacle, and think that finding fault is the only way to pass for judges." Such are the words of his Honour, the prophet Brudenell. John St. John says that the Baccelli is thrown away in the part of Nannette; au lieu d'etre danseuse, elle n'est que la Columbine. This he takes from the Baccelli, and the Duke of Dorset. John acts a strange underpart at the theatre. Mademoiselle Baccelli's runner is not so honourable an employment as being Lord North's.

Selwyn lost within this week a large sum of money. He was so larmoyant the other morning, that I did not dare to ask him any questions about it. Delme has sold all his hunters, and sold them at very extraordinary prices; his hounds too sold excessively well; it was fortunate at all events to part with them, but the people who bought them, according to all accounts, were as mad as he had been in keeping them. . . .

In Monday night's debate neither Dunning (n)or Barry was in the House; that looks very like a measure; it is impossible that should be mere accident. Opposition were without several of their plumpers that evening, either from their being ill or their being out of town. Lord Robert and Lord Edward for instance were ill; Ned Foley and his brother-in-law, out of town; Lord Howe and Doily not in the House, with more that do not occur to me. Burke acted with his usual bad judgment in not letting Sir Fletcher Norton speak before him, but rather pressing his privilege of bringing in the Bill, to speak before him; consequently Sir Fletcher did not speak at all. It was a debate of young members entirely. Neither Charles Fox or Lord N(orth) spoke. There is a Select Committee upon East India affairs sitting, at which there is a great deal of curious evidence given relating to the manners, customs, and religion of the Gentoos. I was there one morning, and was very much entertained with the accounts of the witnesses. A Brammin, who is now in England, was examined on Monday. Voici, milord, assez de details.