Many stories they heard, many stories they told,
Parson Legge[274] was the parson, his stories were old,
And ye Baron was Lord Boringdon.
There is more, but I forget it.
Ld. Lansdown came to see me yesterday. He looked very well, and appeared more cordial to me than he has done since Ld. W.’s affairs have worried him. There is certainly something very whimsical in my situation with respect to him and Ld. W.; each suspect I prefer the other, and both have taken an aversion to me on that account, for Ld. W. is really so displeased with me that in his letters he never names me, or does he write, as he used to do, frequently to me. Arduous would be the attempt to decipher Ld. W.’s character. The most predominant feature is the love of singularity. His success in that aim is most favourably aided by his possessing innately a large portion of it. He endeavours more to surprise than to please. His sarcastic humour is excellent, the gravity of his manner sets off his wit. It is difficult to ascertain whether he is in joke or earnest, and he frequently begins seriously a conversation which his love of persiflage makes him end ironically.
LORD MACARTNEY
21st April.—Wednesday, 17th, dined with the Dss. of Leinster; went to the play. Returned here. Thursday, Lds. Digby, Kirkwall,[275] and Mr. Adderley dined. Friday we dined alone, went to the play with Mrs. Smith. Saturday we dined alone; went to the Opera. Smith dined to-day. Lord Macartney came to see me; he has been very ill, seriously so with gout, etc., etc. I asked him his opinion of Hastings, whether, tho’ a tyrant, he administered the Government of India with ability. He said his testimony would be that of an enemy, as they had quarrelled in India upon the subject of the Nabob of Arcot; but his opinion of him was that he was a man of violent passions, who would stop at nothing where his avarice, ambition, and revenge could be satisfied; that, as to his public conduct, had he not been recalled the English settlements would have been ruined. He deprecated politics, and lamented Ld. H.’s decided opposition, and quoted a maxim of Ld. H.’s grandfather’s that no man ought to be in Opposition above six months, just to show what his abilities could do, that he might be justly estimated. This conversation reminded me of Hare’s story of Ld. Macartney’s reason for not adhering to Mr. Fox. Hare asked him how it happened that, connected as he had always been with the Fox family, he never was politically united with them. He said he loved consistency, for if he had once gone into Opposition, he must always have continued so. ‘Why, no,’ replied Hare; ‘if the Opposition got into power, maintaining their principles, you would then not always be in Opposition.’ ‘No, no. Once in Opposition, always in Opposition. I love uniformity.’ This was all the answer he could extract from him.
Gilbert Wakefield pleaded again in person at the King’s Bench in behalf of his pamphlet. He first compared himself to Paul pleading before Festus, and throughout manifested a firm conviction that he was a martyr to his principles, and endeavoured to show the heroism with which he submitted to the persecution. In the course of his speech he named Nero, Tiberius, and Polypheme. Ld. Kenyon, in the summing up, said an English jury would not be browbeaten, notwithstanding all he said about the Three Roman Emperors.
Tierney said he was expected at dinner where he dined, and that the effect was comical when his apology came, giving for excuse his imprisonment. Ld. Thanet is very apprehensive as the day approaches for his trial.
The Dss. of Gordon[276] was laughing at Borino,[277] saying he had sat by her for an hour talking of such strange things—morale and physique, upon which Ld. H. said well enough that he certainly could only comprehend half his discourse. C. Ellis came to see me, the first time since his marriage. I thought there must have been something extraordinary to keep him so long away, and Ly. B. let me into the secret, the origin of which is Ly. Hawkesbury’s extreme prudery. She is shocked at the thoughts of my knowing Mrs. Ellis, and I suppose C. felt an awkward shyness at coming without naming her; but he need not have been under any alarm on my account. It is difficult to affront or mortify me. The first I hope my sense and temper will always avert, and the second I am insensible to, as I know the singularity of my position too well not to be blunted to all occurrences that otherwise might humiliate. Prudery comes with an odd and questionable aspect from a Hervey. Lord Bristol is full of wit and pleasantry. He is a great admirer of Lady Hamilton,[278] and conjured Sr. W. to allow him to call her Emma. That he should admire her beauty and her wonderful attitudes is not singular, but that he should like her society certainly is, as it is impossible to go beyond her in vulgarity and coarseness.[279] So much so, that the Austrian Ambassador’s sarcasm is excellent. After showing her attitudes, which she does by representing the finest statues and pictures, he asked, ‘Et quand est-ce qu’elle fera Miladi?’ Her vulgarity destroyed the illusion when I saw her once. She had worked one’s imagination up to a pitch of enthusiasm in her successive imitations of Niobe, Magdalen, and Cleopatra. Just as she was lying down, with her head reclined upon an Etruscan vase to represent a water-nymph, she exclaimed in her provincial dialect: ‘Doun’t be afeard, Sr. Willum, I’ll not crack your joug.’ I turned away disgusted, and I believe all present shared the sentiment.