“When I went in she intermitted her discourse for a moment to receive me and offer me a seat which I immediately took and for about half an hour had the opportunity to admire the brilliancy of her genius as it sparkled incessantly in her conversation. There was something a little too broad and direct in the substance of the panegyrics which she pronounced to allow them the claim of refinement. There was neither disguise nor veil to cover their naked beauties, but they were expressed with so much variety and vivacity that the hearers had not time to examine the thread of their texture. Lord Cathcart received the compliments pointed at himself with becoming modesty; those to his nation with apparent satisfaction and those to the conquest of Salamanca with silent acquiescence. The lady insisted that the British was the most astonishing nation of antient or modern times, the only preservers of social order, the defenders exclusively of the liberties of mankind, to which his lordship added that their glory was in being a moral nation, a character which he was sure they would always preserve. The glittering sprightliness of the Lady and the stately gravity of the Embassador were as well contrasted as their respective topics of praise, and if my mind had been at cast to relish anything in the nature of an exhibition I should have been much amused at hearing a Frenchwoman’s celebration of the generosity of the English towards other nations and a lecture upon national morality from the commander of the expedition Copenhagen.
Owned by the Century Association, New York. Half-tone plate engraved by H. Davidson
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
FROM THE PORTRAIT, PAINTED IN 1835, BY ASHER B. DURAND
“During this sentimental duet between the ambassador and the Embassadress, kept my seat, merely an auditor. The rest of the company were equally silent. Among them was an English Naval Officer, Admiral Bentinck, since deceased. He was then quite the chevalier d’honneur to Madame de Staël but whether the scene did not strike him precisely as it did me or whether his feelings resulting from it were of a more serious nature than mine the moment it was finished he drew a very long breath and sighed it out as if relieved from an offensive burden saying only ‘thank God that’s over.’ He and all the rest of the company immediately after that retired and left me tête-à-tête with Madame de Staël.
“The subject respecting America was to tell me that she had a large sum in the American funds and to enquire whether I knew how she could contrive to receive the interest which she had hitherto received from England. I gave her such information as I possessed. She had also some lands in the State of New York of which she wished to know the value. I answered her as well as I could but her lands and her funds did not appear to occupy much of her thoughts.
“She soon asked me if I was related to the celebrated Mr. Adams who wrote the book upon Government. I said I had the happiness of being his son. She said she had read it and admired it very much, that her father. Mr. Necker, had always expressed a very high opinion of it. She next commenced upon Politics and asked how it was possible that America should have declared war against England. In accounting for this phenomenon I was obliged to recur to a multitude of facts not as strongly stamped with British generosity or British Morality as might be expected from the character which she and the Embassador had just been assigning that nation. The orders in council and the press gang afforded but a sorry commentary upon the Chauvinesque defence of the liberties of mankind and no very instructive lessons of morality. She had nothing to say in their defence but she thought that the knights errant of the Human race were to be allowed special indulgence and in consideration of their cause were not to be held by the ordinary obligations of war and peace.
“There was no probability that any arguments of mine could make any impression upon opinions thus toned. She listened, however, with as much complacency as could be expected to what I said and finally asked me why I had not been to see her before. I answered that her high reputation was calculated to inspire respect no less than curiosity and that however desirous I had been of becoming personally acquainted with her I had thought I could not without indiscretion intrude myself upon her Society. The reason appeared to please her. She said she was to leave this city the next day at noon. She was going to Stockholm to pass the winter and then to England. She wished to have another conversation with me before she went and asked me to call on her the next morning.
“I readily accepted the invitation and we discussed politics again two or three hours. I found her better conversant with Rhetoric than with Logic. She had much to say about social order, much about universal monarchy, much about the preservation of religion in which she gave me to understand she did not herself believe, and much about the ambition and supremacy of Buonaparte upon which she soon discovered there was no difference of sentiment between us. But why did not America join in the holy cause against the tyrant? First because America had no means of making war against him, she could neither attack him by sea or land. 2d because it was a fundamental maxim of American policy never to intermeddle with the political affairs of Europe. Thirdly because it was altogether unnecessary. He had enemies enough upon his hands already. What! Did not I dread his universal monarchy? Not in the least. I saw indeed a very formidable mass of force arrayed under him, but I saw a mass of force at least as formidable arrayed against him. Europe contained about 100 millions of human beings. He was wielding the means of 15 millions and the means of 85 millions were wielding against him. It was an awful spectacle to behold the shock, but I did not believe nor ever had believed that he would ever be able to subjugate even the continent of Europe. If there had ever been any real danger of such an event it was passed.