after Lady Hamilton’s decease), and to whom, as to Alderman Smith, the
forlorn creature was indebted for much aid ere death placed her beyond
the need of requiring it.

This tale bears with it its own moral: retribution followed offence:
the commission of sin reaped its usual reward; the wanderer from
virtue was visited with terrible affliction; and the penalty awaited
not its commencement till the knell of the offender had summoned
her to judgment. Thus much man knows, but with thus much he has not
condescended to rest satisfied; and the sons of the seducers have been
eager to cast stones at her whom their fathers enticed to sin. In the
remembrance of her faults they make no account of her services, of her
suffering, or of her sorrows; they have no idea that, if there was
guilt, there might have been reconciliation, and that the dark season
of her long last agony might have been passed in

     Owning her weakness,
       Her evil behaviour,
     And leaving with meekness,
       Her sins to her Saviour.

No: man who bore part in the offence constituted himself the judge of
this poor daughter of frailty, and she met with such mercy at his hands
as man is accustomed to give.

Do not let it be supposed that we are advocates or even apologists in
this case: our only anxiety is that, in the sacrifice of one, impunity
may not be gained by, perhaps, greater offenders. Let not the man who
flung her beauty and her virtue into ruin be allowed to escape. Her
sins were of man’s making: if these are to be remembered, let his share
in them form part of the example we are taught to avoid. By man she
was ruined in body and perilled in soul. Throughout the course of her
life she does not appear to have met with one who acted by her in a
spirit of Christian charity and anxiety: she was born with qualities
that should have led her heavenward: she was early pushed from the
path thither tending; nor amid all her royal, her noble, and alas!
her clerical companions, was there one who persuaded her that she was
erring--nay, but the contrary. The whole correspondence, now for the
first time divulged in these volumes, shows the wickedness of men
who could seduce to sin--their guilt in maintaining such terms with
her who had fallen as to make her feel assured that she had neither
incurred sin nor merited disgrace--and their baseness in making her in
her helplessness feel with double weight the penalty of a crime which
they had in the days of her greatness held to be none. Let us, indeed,
learn wisdom from a tale, the heroine of which does not afford the
sole example that is to be avoided; but be it also ours to remember
her services rather than her sins. The latter, with those of the first
seducer who made of her very charity a means to destroy her for ever,
may be left to Him who will render an unerring sentence when seducer
and victim are in presence together at the tribunal of truth. At all
events, let not the hardest blows of humanity fall on the weakest
offender. She would have been better but for man--that she was not much
worse was for no lack of energy on his part to make her so.

     Who made the heart, ’tis He alone
       Decidedly can try us:
     He knows each chord, its various tone--
       Each spring, its various bias.
     Then at the balance let’s be mute,
       We never can adjust it.
     What’s _done_ we partly can compute,
       But know not what’s resisted.

FOOTNOTE:

[2] Graham first appeared in London in 1782. He was a graduate of
Edinburgh, wrote in a bombastic style, and possessed a great fluency
of elocution. He opened in Pall Mall a mansion which he called the
‘Temple of Health.’ The front was ornamented with an enormous gilt
sun, a statue of Hygeia, &c. The rooms were superbly furnished, and
the decorations, mirrors, &c., gave to the whole the appearance of an
enchanted palace. Single admission to his lectures on health and the
birth of children cost two guineas--a sum readily given. The Goddess
of Health usually delivered a supplementary lecture when the doctor
concluded. When two guinea auditors were exhausted, his two gigantic
porters, decked in gorgeous liveries, deluged the town with bills
stating that the lectures would be delivered at one guinea each. The
descending scale ultimately reached half-a-crown, and at last he
exhibited the Temple of Health itself at one shilling per head. Its
chief attraction was a ‘celestial bed,’ with rich hangings and glass
legs. The quack promised such results from merely sleeping on this
enchanted couch that married persons of high rank and respectability
were known to have given one hundred pounds for the accommodation.
Persons more foolish still and as highly exalted were found who gave
him one thousand pounds for a supply of his ‘elixir of life.’ He
then, when dupes were not grown scarce, but required variety in the
means of imposition, took to the practice and public exhibition of
earth-bathing. He and his goddess stood an hour each day immersed to
the chin in earth, above which their heads appeared, dressed in the
extravagant fashion of the day. In this position he delivered a lecture
on the salubrity of the practice at sums for single admissions which
commenced at a guinea and ended at a shilling. When all London had
heard and seen him he made a provincial tour; but, in spite of his
elixir of life, he died at the early age of fifty-two; and, in spite
of the facility with which he gained money, he died in poverty. The
famous Mrs. Macaulay married his brother, and Dr. Arnold, of Leicester,
the author of an able treatise on insanity, married his sister. In the
profession of the most impudent quackery Dr. Graham has never been
equalled, either for impudence or the success which attended it.

_EDWARD WORTLEY MONTAGU._

Lady Mary Pierrepont, when she wrote to Mr. Wortley touching the
death of his sister, said she had lost what she loved most, and could
thenceforth only love those who were nearest and dearest to her
departed friend. Out of this hint, it may be, came the marriage of Lady
Mary and Mr. Wortley. It seemed a disinterested match on both sides,
but it was not fruitful in happiness. Of this union were born a son and
daughter; the mother reserved all her love for the latter.

The son was born in May 1713. Within two months from that date Lady
Mary had left her firstborn to mercenary, but perhaps efficient and
kindly care. In July she wrote to her husband, ‘I heard from your
little boy yesterday, who is in good health.’ In that phrase, so cold
in its unmotherly temper, may perhaps be found the cause why that
‘little boy’ became so wayward, and why he developed into a man so
wilful and so irreclaimable. In 1717 the boy was taken by his parents
to Constantinople, where Mr. Wortley acted, for a few months, as
English representative. On the return from this embassy, Lady Mary
tarried for a while at Belgrade. At that time the small-pox was a
deadly scourge in England. In Turkey it was less mortal. The infidel
Turk anticipated and modified the disease by inoculation. Lady Mary had
the courage to submit her child to the novel system of ‘engrafting,’ as
it was called. In a letter written at Belgrade in March 1718 she says:
‘The boy was engrafted last Tuesday, and is at this time singing and
playing, very impatient for his supper. I pray God my next may give as
good an account of him.’ For society at large the step which Lady Mary
took was most beneficial; but few mothers, however courageous, would
have had the heart, in a foreign land too, to suffer such an experiment
to be made on an only son, not yet five years of age. She had, however,
full confidence in the efficacy of the proceeding: and she remarked
that she would have imparted the matter to the doctors generally, only
that they were too selfish to sanction a course which would diminish
their incomes!

In the following year commenced the daring escapades of this young
gentleman. In 1719 he became a Westminster Scholar. Within six months
he was missing from the school, and his friends had such knowledge
of his tastes that they searched for him in the lowest purlieus of
London. They sought for this mere child in vain; till after some time
a Mr. Foster and a servant of Mr. Wortley, being in the neighbourhood
of Blackwall, heard a boy crying ‘Fish!’ The voice was familiar, the
boy, on being seen, was recognised, and his master, a fisherman, to
whom the child--so it is said--had bound himself to help to sell the
fish which they had caught together, parted from him with a regret that
was felt on both sides. The truant was reinstated at school, if not at
home, but in a brief time the bird was flown and left no trace behind
him. A year or two, perhaps more, had elapsed when the Quaker captain
of a ship trading to Oporto, and the British consul in that city, were
looking at a young fellow driving some laden asses from the vineyards
through the city gates. The captain saw in the lad a sailor who had
come on board in the Thames, and run away from his ship on its arrival
at Oporto. He had gone up country and found employment, although he was
ignorant of the language. The consul knew him in his real personality,
and the adventurous hero was shipped for home, where he was kept not
so strictly as if the keepers would be sorry at his again escaping.
Edward Wortley took a convenient opportunity to do so, and when he was
next recognised he was acting diligently, as he had always done, this
time as a common sailor in the Mediterranean. There was the making
of a hero in this resolute boy, if he had only been allowed to follow
his inclinations. On the contrary, he was exiled to the West Indies,
with Foster to attend him as teacher and guardian. They spent several
years there; and the boy, who preferred to battle with and for life,
to spending it in ease and luxury, had nothing to do but to study
the classics, which he did, as he did most things, with energy and a
certain success. How he failed, or neglected to leave Foster in the
lurch, is not explained. Neither do we know anything of his actual life
after his return to England, for many years. Had he been left at sea,
Edward Wortley would probably have distinguished himself. As it was he
abused life, but only as other ‘young sparks’ did in England; and he
filled up the measure of his offences by marrying a handsome honest
laundress, older than himself, of whom he got tired in a few weeks. A
small annuity reconciled her to living comfortably by herself. After
this, all is dark, and we cannot come again upon the trail but by the
help of Lady Mary’s letters.

There are few references made to her son by Lady Mary, except in
letters to her husband when she was living abroad, ranging from 1741
to 1752. In a letter from Genoa, in 1741, she regrets having to bring
before her husband ‘so disagreeable a subject as our son.’ The son
was then anxious to procure a dissolution of his marriage with the
laundress, but the laundress was a decent woman, living a blameless
life, and she could defy Parliament to pass an Act annulling her
marriage, even if the father had been willing to help the son to such
purpose, which he was not. The mother was unmotherly severe on the son.
‘Time,’ she writes, ‘has no effect, and it’s impossible to convince him
of his true situation.’ The son then passed by an assumed name. The
name being mentioned to Lady Mary by a stranger, with reference to the
responsibility of the bearer of it, she replied, ‘the person was, to my
knowledge, not worth a groat, which was all I thought proper to say on
the subject.’

In 1742 this ‘fool of quality’ was now wandering, now tarrying on the
Continent, under the name of M. de Durand. In the June of that year
his mother encountered him, and passed two days with him at Valence,
an ancient city on the Rhone. In various letters to her husband,
she speaks of ‘our son’ as altered almost beyond recognition, with
beauty gone, a look of age not warranted by his years, and, though
submissive, with an increase of the old wildness in his eyes that
shocked her, as it suggested some fatal termination. He had grown fat,
but was still genteel and agreeably polite. She was charmed with his
fluently-expressed French, but she noted a general volubility, yet
without enthusiasm, of speech, which inconsiderate people took for
wit; and a weakness of understanding and of purpose, exposing him to be
led by more resolute spirits. ‘With his head,’ she says, ‘I believe it
is possible to make him a monk one day and a Turk three days after.’
Flattering and insinuating, he caught the favour of strangers, ‘but,’
says the not too-indulgent lady, ‘he began to talk to me in the usual
silly cant I have so often heard from him, which I shortened by telling
him I desired not to be troubled with it; and that the only thing that
could give me hopes of good conduct was regularity and truth.’ She
credited him with ‘a superficial universal knowledge,’ as the result of
what he had seen. His acquaintance with modern languages was undoubted,
but she did not believe that he knew Arabic and Hebrew. He promised to
proceed to Flanders, and there wait his father’s orders; adding, that
he would keep secret the interview with his mother; but M. de Durand
‘rode straight to Montélimart, where he told at the Assembly that he
came into this country purely on my orders ... talking much of my
kindness to him, and insinuating that he had another name, much more
considerable than that he appeared with.’

Edward Wortley was in England in the early part of the above year.
In the latter part he went to Holland, where he resided, a sort of
prisoner at large, by desire of his father, who allowed him a small
income on condition of submission to the paternal will. ‘I hear,’ wrote
Lady Mary, ‘he avoided coming near the sharpers, and is grown a good
manager of his money. I incline to think he will, for the future, avoid
thieves and other persons of good credit.’ When persons of really ‘good
credit’ spoke well of him, as Lord Carteret did, the mother rather
doubted than accepted the testimony. ‘Whenever,’ she wrote to her
husband, ‘he kept much company, it would be right to get him confined,
to prevent his going to the pillory or the gallows;’ and she described
his excuses for his conduct as ‘those of murderers and robbers!’ Young
Wortley was desirous of joining the army in Flanders; his mother
doubted his sincerity, and insisted that he should go as a volunteer.
If his father bought him a commission, she was sure it would be ‘pawned
or sold in a twelvemonth.’ Whether as volunteer or commissioned
officer, he did serve in Flanders. No news to grieve a parent’s heart
came thence; upon which circumstance Lady Mary wrote to her husband in
1744: ‘I think it is an ill sign you have had no letters from Sir John
Cope concerning him. I have no doubt he would be glad to commend his
conduct if there were any room for it;’ and she was inclined to blame
the father for over-indulgence to his son. She had no sympathy even for
the amiable weaknesses of the latter; and yet she was so sentimentally
affected by the tragedy of ‘George Barnwell,’ the rascal hero of which
murders his real uncle in order to gratify the rapacity of a harlot,
that she said, whoever could read the story or see the play without
crying, deserved to be hanged.

Edward Wortley’s countrymen did not think so ill of Lady Mary’s son;
for in 1747 the electors of Huntingdonshire returned him, with Mr.
Coulson Fellowes, member for the county. He was a silent but highly
respectable member. In the year 1748 Mr. Wortley, the father, wrote
to his wife some pleasant news he had heard of their son. The mother
coldly replied, ‘I should be extremely pleased if I could depend on
Lord Sandwich’s account of our son. As I am wholly unacquainted with
him, I cannot judge how far he may be either deceived or interested.’
This singular mother cultivated her antipathies rather than her
sympathies. The father seems to have considered his paternal duty was
discharged by, wisely perhaps, keeping his son on a small allowance.
The son lived as if he had already his inheritance in hand, and for a
year or two he found society in London quite to his mind.

Among the ladies who figured on the Mall by day, who drew crowds around
them at Vauxhall by night, and who were never out of the ‘Scandalous
Chronicle’ of the period, was the ‘Pollard Ashe,’ as she was called.
This miniature beauty was in some measure a mysterious individual. She
was the daughter of a high personage, it was said, and such affinity
was all she had to boast of in the way of family. In the June of 1750,
Walpole thus wrote of her to George Montagu:

     I had a card from Lady Caroline Petersham, to go with her to
     Vauxhall. I went accordingly to her house, and found her and the
     little Ashe ... they had just finished their last layer of red,
     and looked as handsome as crimson could make them.... We issued
     into the Mall to assemble our company, which was all the town....
     We mustered the Duke of Kingston, Lord March (the old Second
     Duke of Queensbury of later years), Mr. Whitehead, a pretty Miss
     Beauclerc, and a very foolish Miss Sparre.... We got into the best
     order we could, and marched to our barge, with a boat of French
     horns attending and little Ashe singing. We paraded some time up
     the river, and at last debarked at Vauxhall.... A Mrs. Lloyd,
     seeing the two girls following Lady Petersham and Miss Ashe, said
     aloud, ‘Poor girls! I am sorry to see them in such bad company!’
     Miss Sparre, who desired nothing so much as the fun of seeing a
     duel--a thing which, though she is fifteen, she has never been so
     lucky to see--took due pains to make Lord March resent this ...
     but he laughed her out of this charming frolic. Here we picked up
     Lord Granby ... very drunk.... He would fain have made love to
     Miss Beauclerc, who is very modest; and did not know what to do
     at all with his whispers or his hands. He then addressed himself
     to the Sparre, who was very well disposed to receive both.... At
     last, we assembled in our booth, Lady Caroline in our front,
     with the vizor of her hat erect, and looking gloriously jolly
     and handsome.... We turned some chicken into a china dish, which
     Lady Caroline stewed over a lamp, with three pats of butter and a
     flagon of water, stirring, and rattling, and laughing, and were
     every minute expecting to have the dish fly about our ears....
     The whole air of our party was sufficient to take up the whole
     attention of the garden.... It was three o’clock before we got
     home.

Very early in the year 1751 our hero made love to Miss Ashe, and at the
same time appeared in public as the first ‘macaroni’ of the day, but
with science and philosophy enough to render him worthy of being taken
into brotherhood by the Royal Society. On February 9, 1751, Walpole
writes:

     Our greatest miracle is Lady Mary Wortley’s son, whose adventures
     have made so much noise; his parts are not proportionate, but his
     expense is incredible. His father scarce allows him anything; yet
     he plays, dresses, diamonds himself, even to distinct shoe-buckles
     for a frock, and has more snuff-boxes than would suffice a Chinese
     idol with a hundred noses. But the most curious part of his dress,
     which he has brought from Paris, is an iron wig; you literally
     would not know it from hair; I believe it is on this account that
     the Royal Society have just chosen him of their body.

His father, however, made no complaint of his son in his letters to his
wife. The anxious mother invariably concluded that when nothing was
said there was something to be dreaded. Accordingly, in a letter to
her husband, dated May 1751, Lady Mary writes:

(May 24, 1751.) ‘I can no longer resist the desire I have to know what
is become of my son. I have long suppressed it, from a belief that,
if there was anything good to be told, you would not fail to give me
the pleasure of hearing it. I find it now grows so much upon me, that
whatever I am to know, I think it would be easier for me to support
than the anxiety I suffer from my doubts. I beg to be informed, and
prepare myself for the worst with all the philosophy I have.’

Her son was not in such a desperate condition as his mother supposed.
The new Fellow of the Royal Society was simply making love to ‘the
Pollard Ashe.’ In the summer of this year, 1751, Vauxhall and the
Mall missed her; but the world knew very well whither she had wended,
and with whom. In September 1751 Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu wrote to
her husband: ‘Young Wortley is gone to France with Miss Ashe. He is
certainly a gentleman of infinite vivacity; but methinks he might as
well have deferred this exploit till the death of his father.’ Walpole
wrote to Mann that ‘Wortley, who, you know, has been a perfect Gil
Blas, is thought to have added the famous Miss Ashe to the number of
his wives.’

While London was busy with the story of the elopement of Miss Ashe
with Edward Wortley Montagu, and this rather airy couple were on
their amorous way to Paris, there was a young Mr. Roberts, not yet
quite twenty-one years of age, sojourning at the _Hôtel d’Orléans_ in
that city, with a Miss Rose for a companion, Miss Rose’s sister for a
friend, and various servants to wait on all three. Roberts lived like
a _milor_, and he gave out that he was about to make the grand tour to
Italy and back. Montagu’s quarters were at the _Hôtel de Saxe_. Roberts
was a stranger to him, but Montagu not only called upon the wealthy
traveller, on September 23, but sent him an invitation to dinner. The
company consisted of Roberts, Lord Southwell, Mr. Taafe, M.P., and
Montagu, who was also a member of the House of Commons. After coffee
the party adjourned to Montagu’s room. Taafe produced dice and proposed
play. Roberts declined, on the ground of being without money; but this
and other pleas were overruled, and, ‘flustered with wine,’ which he
said he had been made to drink, he sat down to tempt fortune. Fortune
used this gambler ill; when he rose to return to his hotel he had lost
870 louis d’ors--400 to Taafe, 350 to Southwell, and 120 to Montagu.
Taafe speedily demanded the amount he had won, and not finding it
forthcoming the British legislator, with Lord Southwell, broke into
his room about midnight, and under dreadful threats, made with swords
drawn, compelled him to give drafts for the entire sum. The crafty
Roberts, however, drew upon bankers with whom he had no effects; and,
probably that he might be out of reach of arrest till he could give an
explanation, he hurriedly set off for Lyons.

The bird had just flown when the three more fortunate gamblers, their
drafts having been dishonoured, forcibly entered Roberts’s rooms and
rifled them of everything valuable--a large sum in gold and silver, a
very valuable assortment of jewellery and precious stones, and the two
Miss Roses. There was 40,000 livres’ worth in all, not including the
sisters. One of these ladies consented with alacrity to accompany Mr.
Taafe, with his other booty, to his quarters at the _Hôtel de Pérou_.
The sister went thither also, for society’s sake, and after a three
days’ sojourn Taafe kissed their hands and sent them to England under
the guardianship of another gentleman.

Perfect tranquillity prevailed among those who remained in Paris, but
on Sunday night, October 25, just before one o’clock, as Montagu was
stepping into bed with, as he says, ‘that security that ought to attend
innocence,’ a commissary of police, backed by an armed force, entered
his room, and, despite all protest, carried him off to the Châtelet.
Before they locked him up for the night, the gaolers would scarcely
utter a word save a rough one, and he could not get even a cup of
water. The night was cold, and a small bit of candle enabled him the
better to see the horrors of his cell. ‘The walls were scrawled over,’
he says in the memoir he published, ‘with the vows and prayers of the
vilest malefactors before they went to the axe or the gibbet.’ Under
one of the inscriptions were the words: ‘These verses were written by
the priest who was hanged and burned, in the year 1717, for stealing a
chalice of the Holy Sacrament.’

On November 2 the charge made by Roberts--namely, that Montagu’s party
had made him half drunk, the better to cheat him at dice, and had
subsequently plundered his rooms--was made known to him. ‘I answered,’
he says, ‘in a manner that ought to have cleared my own innocence, and
to have covered my antagonist with confusion.’ But he was remanded
to prison. Some amelioration of his condition was permitted, and he
was allowed to be visited. Consequently it was the fashion to go and
look at him, but the solaces of his friends could not compensate for
the cruel wit, jeers, and sarcasms cast at him by curious strangers.
Influential persons interested themselves in this notorious case. The
English ambassador interfered with effect. The king, on being moved,
replied that he could not meddle in a private case; but a king can do
many things without appearing to meddle. The charge was again looked
into, and the method of examination may be seen in the result. The
sentence of the court, delivered on January 25, 1752, was to the
effect that the accused be discharged; that Roberts be compelled to
confess the accusation to be false, also to pay 20,000 livres damages
to Montagu and Taafe; and pay all the costs of suit on both sides,
including the expense of publishing the judgment.

As soon as Montagu was free, he published a memoir, explanatory and
defensive. It was not so much a denial as an evasion. It was made up of
assertions that he had ‘never deviated from the sentiments and conduct
of a man of honour;’ that regard ought to be had to ‘the probability
of the charges, the rank of the accused, and the character of the
prosecutor;’ that he was of ‘distinguished condition,’ and that his
accuser was infamous in character and inconsistent in his evidence;
that Lord Albemarle, the English ambassador, had told him that he was
as convinced of his innocence as he was of his own. Montagu protested
that the whole thing was a conspiracy ‘against his Honour and Person,’
at the head of which was the so-called Roberts, whom he had discovered
to be a fraudulent bankrupt Jew, Payba by name, who had fled from
England to avoid the gallows. Montagu acknowledged that he had invited
this ‘infamous bankrupt’ to dinner, but that, instead of winning 120
louis d’ors of him, he had formerly lent that sum to the Jew, who had
‘trumped up this story in order to evade payment.’ He had made the
first call on the _soi-disant_ Mr. Roberts, taking him for a man of
fashion, and it was the custom for the last comer to make such calls
in his neighbourhood, and not to wait to be called upon; and the visit
having been returned the invitation to dinner naturally followed. As
to playing after dinner, Montagu does not deny it; but he says that
the imputation of playing with loaded dice filled him with horror. The
conclusion of the so-named defence is that, as the judgment of the
court was so completely in favour of Montagu and Taafe, the innocence
of those two gentlemen was perfectly established.

Before we see if this was exactly the case, let us see what was thought
of the affair in England. The public press barely alluded to the
scandal, and were not at all grieved at the locking up of a couple of
British senators in a French prison. Private individuals noticed the
scandal in their letters.

In October 1751, Mrs. Montagu wrote to Gilbert West some details of
the gambling affair and its consequences. She described the offence
of Montagu and Taafe as ‘playing with a Jew at Pharaoh, with too much
_finesse_.’

     _Finesse_ (she adds) is a pretty improvement in modern life and
     modern language. It is something people may do without being
     hanged, and speak of without being challenged. It is a point just
     beyond fair skill and just short of downright knavery; but as the
     medium is ever hard to hit, the very professors of finesse do
     sometimes deviate into paths that lead to prisons and the galleys,
     and such is the case of those unhappy heroes. The Speaker of the
     House of Commons will be grieved to see two illustrious senators
     chained at the ignoble oar. The King of France has been applied
     to, but says he does not interpose in private matters. So how it
     will go with them no one can tell. In the meantime, poor Miss Ashe
     weeps like the forsaken Ariadne on a foreign shore.

The conduct of Edward Wortley in England was noticed by his father, in
a letter to Lady Mary, who, replying to it in a letter from Louveres
(November 10, 1751), when the Paris scandal was known, says:--‘I will
not make any reflections on the conduct of the person you mention; ’tis
a subject too melancholy to us both. I am of opinion that tallying at
bassette is a certain revenue (even without cheating) to those who
can get constant punters and are able to submit to the drudgery of
it; but I never knew any one pursue it long and preserve a tolerable
reputation.’ Therewith, the mother dismissed further notice of her
wayward son to talk of an old woman at the baths of Louveres, who
in her hundredth year had recovered sight, teeth, and hair, and who
had died ten years later, not of age, but of tumbling down a stone
staircase; something like the apocryphal Countess of Desmond:--

     Who lived to the age of a hundred and ten,
     And died of a fall from a cherry-tree then.

Even after the son had escaped the galleys, the mother made no
references to the circumstance in a letter to her daughter, the
Countess of Bute (February 1752), but was full of ‘Peregrine Pickle’
and of the rather lively sayings and doings of Lady Vane.

As the maternal susceptibilities were not much ruffled, the sympathy
of the public was not to be expected. We learn more from Walpole than
from Lady Mary. In November 1751, Walpole, writing to Mann, remarks
that all the letters from Paris were very ‘cautious of relating the
circumstances.’ He styles Montagu and Taafe as the ‘two _gentlemen_
who were pharaoh-bankers to Madame de Mirepoix’ in England, and ‘who
had travelled to France to exercise the same profession.’ Walpole
adds that they had ‘been released on excessive bail, are still to
be tried, and may be sent to the galleys or dismissed home, where
they will be reduced to keep the best company; for,’ says Walpole,
‘I suppose nobody else will converse with them.’ The letter-writer
describes Montagu as having been a ‘perfect Gil Blas,’ and as having
added ‘the famous Miss Ashe to the number of his wives.’ Walpole says
of Taafe, ‘He is an Irishman, who changed his religion to fight a
duel, as you know in Ireland a Catholic may not wear a sword.’ But as
Taafe was M.P. for Arundel when Catholics could not sit in Parliament,
it is quite as probable that Taafe changed, or professed to change,
his religion--if he had any religion--that he might become a borough
member. ‘He is,’ writes Walpole, ‘a gamester, usurer, adventurer,
and of late has divided his attentions between the Duke of Newcastle
and Madame de Pompadour; travelling with turtles and pineapples in
post-chaises to the latter, flying back to the former for Lewes races
and smuggling burgundy at the same time.’ The Speaker was railing at
gaming and White’s apropos to these two prisoners. Lord Coke, to whom
the conversation was addressed, replied: ‘Sir, all I can say is, that
they are both members of the House of Commons, and neither of them of
White’s.’

While ‘society’ was discussing this matter, Miss Ashe reappeared in
England and reassumed her former distinguished position. In December
1751, the town witnessed the happy reconciliation of Miss Ashe with
the gay Lady Petersham, who had been offended at the indiscretion of
the younger nymph. Lady Petersham’s principles were very elastic:
she pardoned the Pollard Ashe on her own assurances that she was ‘as
good as married’ to Mr. Wortley Montagu, who, according to Lord
Chesterfield, seemed ‘so puzzled between the _châtelet_ in France and
his wife in England, that it is not yet known in favour of which he
will determine.’

Soon after Lord Chesterfield’s flying comment on the Ariadne who had
really abandoned her Theseus, ‘society’ received her to its arms as
readily as Lady Petersham. The example of both was followed by one
individual. A certain naval officer, named Falconer, made an honest
woman of the Pollard Ashe; and with this marriage ends our interest in
one of the many ‘wives’ of the English Gil Blas.

If some surprise was raised by the judgment given in favour of Montagu
and Taafe, none need exist at present. The two gentlemen who were such
useful friends at the pharaoh tables of Madame de Mirepoix, the French
ambassadress in England, and one of whom supplied Madame de Pompadour,
the French King’s mistress, with turtle and pineapples, could dispense
with the good offices of Louis the Fifteenth, or perhaps obtained them
through the mistress and the ambassadress. But Abraham Payba, _alias_
James Roberts, possessed as influential friends as Taafe and Montagu.
Payba appealed against the judgment, his appeal was successful, and
the two English members of Parliament stood very much in danger of the
galleys. In their turn, however, they appealed against the legality of
quashing the judgment given in their favour. The question came once or
twice before the courts, and then it ceased to be argued. It would seem
as if powerful friends on both sides had interfered. Each party could
claim a decision in its favour and could boast of honour being saved,
but the public feeling was that they were all rogues alike.

After the lapse of a few years, Wortley Montagu came into the
possession of a fixed income by the death of his father in 1755. He had
sold a reversion of 800_l._ a-year. His father now left him an annuity
of 1,000_l._ The disgrace of the Paris adventure was not altogether
forgotten, but Taafe was in favour at Versailles (by what lucky chance
nobody could tell), and Montagu, after a few years of pleasure, took to
better ways than of old. There seems to have come over the half-outcast
a determination to show the better side of his nature and his ability.
In 1759, he published his ‘Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the
Ancient Republics; adapted to the present State of Great Britain.’ In
this work--an able and spirited review of the republics of Greece,
Rome, and Carthage--the author probably stated his own idea of religion
in the words, ‘To search out and adore the Creator in all his works is
our primary duty, and claims the first place in every rational mind.’
Two years subsequent to the publication of this most creditable work,
certain Cornish men thought that Edward Wortley would be their most
fitting representative. In 1761, he was elected member for the borough
of Bossiney. But he was weary of England and the legislature, and he
resolved to leave both for ever.

Before Mr. Montagu left England ‘for good’ in 1762, he made necessary
preparations for at least a long residence abroad. Among those
preparations the most curious may be said to be indicated in the
following copy of a bill of articles purchased at an optician’s.
Moses’s gross of green spectacles sinks into insignificance by the side
of the assortment of spectacles, reading-glasses, pocket telescopes,
&c., with which Mr. Montagu provided himself to meet the exigencies of
foreign travel. The bill is now in the possession of Lord Wharncliffe,
as are some of the articles enumerated. I am greatly indebted to
his lordship for a sight of both, and to the prompt courtesy of his
permission to copy and reproduce this very singular bill.

‘EDWD. WORTLEY MONTAGU, Esq.                          _Dr._ to G. ADAMS.

1761                                                      £   _s._  _d._
_Dec. 23_ Six Ellis’s Microscopes at £2, in the Box
         marked A                                        12    1     0
  --   12 Reading Glasses, in horn boxes, at 4_s._
         each, in the Box marked B.                       2    8     0
  --   24 Reading Glasses, Ruff Shell and Silver,
         at 18/_s._ in the Box C                         22   16     0?
  --   The large Reading glass in Ruff Shell and Silver,
         in the Box C                                     2    2     0
  --   12 Concave glasses in Ruff Shell and Silver,
         at 9/_s._ in the Box C                           5    8     0
  --   A Silver case inlaid with pearl                    2    2     0
       With a pair of Silver Temple Spectacles, in
         the Box C                                        0   13     0
  --   12 Pockett Tellescopes, Nurse Cases, 4
         glasses mounted in Brass, at 16/_s._, in the
         Box D                                            9   12     0
  --   24 Dozen of Concaves in horn boxes, at 18/_s._
         per Dozn, in the Box E                          21   12     0
  --   10 Dozn of Steel Temple Spectacles, at 2/_s._
         each, in the Box F                              12    0     0
  --   10 Dozn of paper cases to Do, at 4/_s._ per
         Doz., in the Box G                               2    0     0
  --   6 pair of the Best Steel Temple Spectacles,
         in Black Fish Cases, at 7/_s._, in the Box H     2    2     0
  --   6 pair Do, in Nurse Cases, at 7/13 = 20/_s._,
         in the Box H                                     6    0     0
  --   Six pair of Silver Temple Spectacles, in best
         Nurse Cases, at 13/16 = 29/_s._, in the Box
         marked H                                         8   16     0
  --   Six pair Steel Temple Spec., at 2/_s._             0   12     0
  --   Six paper cases to Do, Box H                       0    2     0
  --   12 Camp Tellescopes, at 16/_s._ in the Box
         marked K                                         9   12     0
  --   6 Two foot Achromatic Tellescopes, at £2,
         in the Box L                                    12    0     0
  --   12 Ring Dials, at 10/6, in the Box M               6    6     0
  --   2 12-inch Reflecting Tellescopes                   9    9     0
  --   Six metallic Cones, with Six Setts of
         Deformed pictures, at £2 2 0, in the Box N      12   12     0
  --   Six pair of goglars, Box                           1   10     0
  --   12 Reading glasses, in Mahogany frames
         with handles, in the Box marked,
         at 14/_s._                                       8    8     0
  --   12 Leather purses to Do                            0    4     0
       6 Treble Magnifiers, in Ruff Shell and
         Silver, at 25/s., in the Box marked H            7   10     0
  --   24 Black Skin prospects, at 1/6                    1   16     0
  --   24 Do, at 2/_s._                                   2    8     0
  --   Two thermometers to Boiling Water                  3    0     0
  --   Two Brass Box Steering Compasses, with
         Muscovy Tale Cards, 11 Inch.                     1   10     0
  --   One Do, 10 Inches                                  0   13     6
                                                        187    1     6
  --   14 Small Deal Boxes                                0   12     0
  --   2 Strong Packing Cases                             0   14     0
                                                        188    7     6

     ‘_Dec. 30, 1761._ Recd of Edwd Wortley Montagu, Esq., the full
     contents of this Bill and all Demands.

     J. GEO. ADAMS & CO.’

The bill being duly discharged, Edward Wortley took, as it proved, a
final farewell of England. But his friends there soon heard of his
whereabout. He proved that he was not a mere ignorant traveller, by
addressing to the Earl of Macclesfield two letters on an ancient bust
at Turin, the quality of which is warranted by the fact that they were
thought of sufficient importance to be read before the Royal Society.
Wortley Montagu was in a fair way to be a votary of science, but he
might have said with Southwell,

     Tho’ Wisdom woo me to the saint,
     Yet Sense would win me to the shrine.

He had some reason, perhaps, to feel careless and embittered, for in
this year, 1762, his mother died, showing her cruel contempt for him
by leaving him a guinea, which he gave to Mr. Davison, a friend and
companion in his wayfaring. It was from his mother, said Mrs. Piozzi,
that the ‘learned’ and accomplished Edward Wortley Montagu inherited
all his ‘tastes and talents for sensual delights.’

In the same year, 1762, the English consul at Alexandria was a
Scandinavian, a native either of Denmark or Sweden, named Feroe. His
wife was a beautiful young woman, born at Leghorn in 1741. Her father
(sometimes said to be an innkeeper) was English, or of English descent.
His name was Dormer, the name of a family that had once given a duchess
to one of the Italian states, and that has given a line of barons to
the English peerage since the year 1615 to the present day. The mother
of the lady in question was an Italian; her maiden name was Maria
Sciale. There were several children of this marriage, but we have only
to notice the beautiful Caroline Dormer, who married Consul Feroe, of
Alexandria. This Caroline is said to have been as much distinguished
for her virtue as for her beauty. The Dormer family record (in Lord
Wharncliffe’s possession), in which this double distinction is
chronicled, perhaps, ‘doth protest too much’ with respect to the
virtue, as that quality would now be understood; but of this the reader
may judge for himself.

The consul and his wife were happily settled at Alexandria, when
Wortley Montagu was sojourning in that city. Her beauty, as the
Scripture phrase expresses it, took his mind prisoner. The object
he had in view--that of carrying her off from her husband--seemed
unattainable; but Montagu did not allow himself to be deterred by
difficulties, and he found a way to surmount them. It was the way of
a very unscrupulous man, but he had few scruples in compassing any
end. He appeared as the friend of the family. He made no advances
to the lady, but he manifested great interest in the welfare of her
husband. Egypt was too dull a place for a man of such abilities.
Montagu succeeded in inducing Feroe to leave it for a while on some
pretended mission to Europe, which was to prove very lucrative to
the poor consul, who took men and things for what they seemed to
be. After Feroe’s departure there came news of his sudden illness.
A little additional time elapsed, and then came intelligence of his
death. The decease of the consul in Holland was officially attested,
and in 1763 Montagu presented the mournful document to the beautiful
young widow. After she had made herself mistress of its contents,
and saw herself left alone in a strange land, he took pity on her
exquisite grief, made love to her at once, and proposed a remedy for
her loneliness by her taking him for husband. The fair young widow was
not hard to woo. She did not indeed yield at once. She suggested some
becoming objections. She, a Roman Catholic, had erred, she thought, in
marrying Mr. Feroe, who was a Protestant. She could not bring herself
to repeat the error, but she intimated that she might be won if her
handsome lover would turn from his heretical ways and become a true
son of the true church. As nothing more than this trifle stood as an
obstacle to his success, Montagu resolved to become Roman Catholic.
Perhaps he reflected long enough on the matter to persuade himself
that he had a true call to that church. At all events, he professed
to be somewhat divinely driven. He repaired to Jerusalem, and made
his profession at the fountain-head of Christianity. In October 1764
Montagu presented himself in the Holy City to Father Paul, prefect of
the missions in Egypt and Cyprus. The traveller said that he had come
to Jerusalem rather out of curiosity than devotion, but that the hand
of God had fallen upon him. From his youth up, he stated (truly enough)
that he had been the dupe of the devil. He made the statement with
manifestations of grief, especially as he had obstinately resisted the
impulses of the Holy Spirit, for which he now expressed penitence and
humbly sought pardon. Father Paul gave heed to the repentant sinner’s
statement, and finding him cleansed from all heretical depravity,
freed him from all pains and penalties decreed by the church against
heretics, gave him plenary absolution, and received him into communion
with Rome. Father Paul thought much of his convert, whom he styles, in
the official certificate of Montagu’s conversion, ‘Dominus Comes de
Montagu’ (as every Englishman abroad in those days used to be called
‘mi lord,’) and the good father bids all the faithful to refrain from
snubbing the convert, but on the contrary, to rejoice and be merry over
him, as they would be over the unexpected finding of a treasure. A copy
of the original document, which still sparkles with the silver dust
showered over the finely written Italian letters, was printed in ‘Notes
and Queries,’ January 4, 1873.

There is no reason to doubt that soon after this act was accomplished
Mr. Wortley Montagu and Madame Feroe _née_ Dormer, were duly married.
Their conjugal felicity, however, was slightly disturbed by the
reappearance of the consul Feroe, who very naturally expressed the
greatest surprise at the household arrangements which had taken place
in his absence, and he laid claim to his beautiful wife. The Catholic
lady was persuaded that her first marriage with the Protestant consul
was null and void, the validity of such a union not being recognised
by her church. At the same time she looked with some doubt, or she
affected so to look, on the contract with her second husband. Appeal
was made to the law tribunals of Tuscany, and pending the appeal,
the wife of two husbands retired to a religious house at Antoura,
in Syria. Montagu solaced himself with travel: he possibly knew that
Italian judges were tardy in coming to conclusions. Whither he wended
is quite easy to tell, for in 1765 Mr. Montagu was encountered at
Venice. Mr. Sharp, in his Letters from Italy, has one dated Venice,
September 1765, in which he gives the following account:

     One of the most curious sights we saw among these curiosities,
     was the famous Mr. Montagu, who was performing quarantine at
     the Lazaretto. All the English made a point of paying him their
     compliments in that place, and he seemed not a little pleased with
     their attention. It may be supposed that visitors are not suffered
     to approach the person of any who is performing quarantine. They
     are divided by a passage of about seven or eight feet wide.
     Mr. Montagu was just arrived from the East; he had travelled
     through the Holy Land, Egypt, Armenia, &c., with the Old and New
     Testaments in his hands for his direction, which, he told us,
     had proved unerring guides. He had particularly taken the road
     of the Israelites through the Wilderness, and had observed that
     part of the Red Sea which they had passed through. He had visited
     Mount Sinai, and flattered himself he had been on the very part
     of the rock where Moses spake face to face with God Almighty. His
     beard reached down to his breast, being of two years and a half
     growth; and the dress of his head was Armenian. He was in the most
     enthusiastic raptures with Arabia and the Arabs. Like theirs,
     his bed was the ground, his food rice, his beverage, water, his
     luxury, a pipe and coffee. His purpose was to return once more
     among that virtuous people, whose morals and hospitality, he
     said, were such, that were you to drop your cloak in the highway,
     you would find it there six months afterwards, an Arab being too
     honest a man to pick up what he knows belongs to another; and,
     were you to offer money for the provision you meet with, he would
     ask you, with concern, why you had so mean an opinion of his
     benevolence, to suppose him capable of accepting a gratification.
     ‘Therefore, money,’ said he, ‘in that country, is of very little
     use, as it is only necessary for the purchase of garments, which,
     in so warm a climate, are very few and of very little value.’ He
     distinguishes, however, between the wild and the civilised Arab,
     and proposes to publish an account of all that I have written.

In 1765, Wortley Montagu (while sojourning at Pisa), wrote his
well-known account of his journey to ‘The Written Mountains’ in the
East. It is a clever and modest record; his conclusion being that
the rock inscriptions were undecipherable, and probably would not,
if interpreted, be worth the outlay of means. This account was read
before the Royal Society. In March 1766 he was still at Pisa, whence
he wrote to M. Varsy, a merchant from Marseilles, established at
Rosetta, and married to a sister of Mrs. Feroe, or Mrs. Montagu, as
the Tuscan judges might decide. The letter in French (now, with others
quoted below, in Lord Wharncliffe’s possession,) contains the following
personal matter:--

     ... On my way back I shall go through Alexandria and Rosetta to
     see you, and also to see whether I cannot establish myself at
     Rosetta rather than in Syria. As my father-in-law sets out for
     Syria next week, I shall not be obliged to take the shortest road;
     my wife will be at ease, and I shall have at least time to assure
     you how charmed I shall be to find opportunities of testifying to
     you my gratitude, and of renewing our old and dear friendship--a
     friendship which will always be dear to me, and with which I shall
     never cease to be, &c., &c.

     D. MONTAIGU.

I have before me the original ‘dispensation,’ to enable him to
neglect keeping Lent in the usual abstinent way. That he should take
the trouble to procure such a power would seem to be warrant for a
sincerity for which we can hardly credit him. It is dated ‘March 6,
1767,’ and he is styled ‘Excellentissimus Dominus Eduardus de Comitibus
Montagu.’ Meanwhile the question of the marriage was still undecided.
The ecclesiastical and civil judges were perhaps not long in forming,
but they were very slow in delivering judgment. Mrs. Montagu, however,
or ‘the Countess,’ as she was sometimes called, seems to have formed a
judgment of her own; or, at all events, to have accepted that of her
second husband. They lived together at Smyrna, where for two years both
applied themselves to the study of Turkish, in which language, as in
others of the East, Montagu became a proficient scholar. On New Year’s
day, 1769, he addressed a joyous letter to his brother-in-law Varsy.
The Tuscan and the Roman tribunals had at length pronounced on the
great question. The rich and orthodox second husband was declared to
be the legal possessor of the lady, and her previous marriage with the
poor heretical consul was decreed to be no marriage at all.

     You cannot imagine, thus runs the letter, the great joy I feel at
     being able to tell you that Mr. Feroe has the final decree of the
     Court of the Nuncio at Florence. Accordingly, as Madame is already
     here (Smyrna), we reckon on being as soon as possible at Rosetta.
     But prudence requires that we should first write to you to beg you
     to find us a suitable house. That in which we were before would
     be good enough, but I think and fear that the consul may have it.
     Without the servants, there are myself, my wife, and her father
     (_monsieur son père_). We live more in the Turkish fashion than
     ever. Accordingly, the women’s apartments must be comfortable
     and convenient for the _salamlike_ (_sic_), and there must be a
     chamber for my father-in-law. You know what is necessary. The
     quarter in which we live must be free from disturbance, from
     plague, and from robbers. Have the kindness to inform me if
     the country is tranquil, and if you believe that there is no
     danger from the government; for here no end of stories is being
     circulated. Write by the first ship. Be convinced of the constant
     friendship with which I am, my very dear friend, entirely yours,

     D. MONTAIGU.

There seems to have been some obstruction to impede the desired
settlement in Egypt. In a letter, dated ‘Antoura’ (Syria), ‘January,
1771,’ there is the following passage:--

     Many accidents have prevented me from following my design and my
     inclination for Rosetta; and indeed it seems more prudent to wait
     till the government (in Egypt) is authorised (_affirmé_) by the
     consent of the Ottoman Porte, before we establish ourselves in
     Egypt. However, here I am nearer to you, and I shall not fail to
     follow my first plan as soon as circumstances will allow. Madame
     thanks you for your _souvenir_, and sends many compliments. Keep
     yourself well, continue to love me, and be assured of the constant
     and perfect friendship of your very humble servant,

     CHEV. DE MONTAIGU.

It may be mentioned by the way, that Wortley Montagu reckoned among
his friends men not at all likely to entertain respect for worthless
individuals. ‘My learned friend, the Bishop of Ossory,’ is a phrase
which bears one of these indications. It was written at Cairo.
Meanwhile, here is another characteristic note from Cyprus. The writer
speaks of his wife, as if the laundress of old no longer existed.

     À. M. JOSEPH VARSY, négociant français, à Rosette.

     Chipre, 24 juin 1771.

     MONSIEUR,--Enfin, mon très-cher ami, je touche au moment de vous
     embrasser. Cette lettre vous sera envoyée d’Alexandrie par ma
     femme, qui va à Rosette avec M. son père et Mademoiselle sa sœur.
     Je vous supplie de leur procurer ou une maison commode, ou un
     appartement suffisant dans l’oquel (?), où ils attendront jusqu’à
     ce que je leur écrive du Caire, où je vais par voie de Damiette.

     CHEV. DE MONTAIGU.

In July, he writes thus from Damietta:--

     À M. JOSEPH VARSY, négociant français, à Rosette.

     Damiette, 14 juillet 1771.

     Me voici, mon tres-chèr ami, arrivé proche de vous; aussi je me
     flatte que dans peu j’aurai l’honneur de vous embrasser. Ma femme
     doit être arrivée à Alexandrie, et elle m’attendra à Rosette. Ayez
     la bonté de lui faire avoir un appartement, ou deux, s’il le faut,
     et de l’assister en ce dont elle aura besoin pour la maison. Je
     crois être assez assuré de votre amitié pour être persuadé que
     vous ne me refuserez pas ce service. Je vous écrirai du Caire le
     moment que j’arriverai. En attendant soyez assuré que je serai
     toujours, comme vous m’avez toujours connu,

     Votre très-humble serviteur et véritable ami,

     CHEV. DE MONTAIGU.

Five days later, he acknowledges, from Alexandria, the arrival of
a box of pipes, from Constantinople. Soon after, the Egyptian home
was established. It was on a thoroughly Eastern footing, and the two
chief inmates seem to have devoted themselves to the study of Eastern
languages and literature. But in August 1772 the home seems to have
been abandoned by Montagu. There was a report that he had embraced
Mohammedanism, in order to visit Mecca in safety, and that his wife
having refused to follow his example, or to recognise a negro boy who
was with him as his heir, he separated from her. The following note
shows that he was again roaming, but also that he was careful for his
wife’s comforts and on friendly terms with her family.

     (À VARSY.)

     Alexandrette, août 4, 1772.

     Nous voici, mon très-cher ami, après une heureuse navigation de
     trois jours, arrivés à Alexandrette. C’est un village précisément
     comme Tor. Nous y avons trouvé des chevaux et un domestique de M.
     Belleville. Ainsi, nous partons ce soir pour Aleppe, sans attendre
     l’escorte. Les gens que l’on dit obsèdent le chemin ne sont que
     cinq ou six; et nous sommes trois, bien armés, sans compter M.
     Belleville: ainsi nous n’avons rien à craindre. Il n’y a pas
     de peste, ni rien de semblable. Le Pacha est à Aleppe et non à
     Damas; assez loin de votre maison. Je vous prie d’avoir toutes les
     attentions que vous pouvez pour ma femme. Mes complemens à ce que
     vous avez de plus cher. M. Raymond vous enverra ... une pellisse
     neuve; il vous en dira aussi le prix; si ma femme la trouve belle
     et le prix honnête elle la prendra, et M. Raymond vous la passera
     avec compte; si non, vous en disposerez selon les ordres de M. R.
     Adieu. Je monte à cheval.

Similar notes tell of his progress, of certain inconveniences from
being too long in the saddle, exposed to the sun; and in the autumn, of
his approaching return home. In September he writes to Varsy:

     I am well persuaded of the care you take of our house, and I
     beg you to hurry on the workmen, and that everything be done
     absolutely in accordance with my wife’s inclinations. Let the men
     put up the paper as she orders it, but let no one touch my room
     below, unless he can paint it perfectly in the Arab fashion.

After expressing surprise that Mohammed Kiaja, a supposed friend, is
intriguing against him, and stating that if his return to Rosetta
should create any difficulties or perils, it would be better to have
them smoothed away while he is at a distance, he writes:

     ... J’ai dépensé ici 800 piastres; il est vrai que je les ai
     dépensés en des choses qui valent plus chez nous, et quand les
     dames auront pris ce qui les accommode, nous ferons faire de
     l’argent du reste; mais en attendant cela vous incommode; il faut
     en ce cas-là prendre de l’argent à intérêt pour mon compte, et
     disant que c’est pour moi pour ne pas prodiguer mon nom. Quand la
     cuisine est finie, il faut blanchir toute l’ancienne cuisine et
     autres endroits qui sont sur son niveau....

In a letter from Latackia, October 1, 1772, he speaks of projects
promising great results; ‘broad rivers’ (he says) ‘are the sum of
narrow streams.’ In a still later letter the project seems to refer to
pearls and rich stuffs. The letter concludes thus:

     Je vous prie de me faire faire, par Schieck Ali, un catalogue de
     tous mes livres arabes, turcs, et persans, qui sont manuscrits, et
     qu’il mette vis-à-vis de chacun le prix suivant qu’il les estime.

This indicates an approaching break up. The cause of it does not
appear, except as far as can be made out in a letter from

     Alexandrie, 13 oct. 1772.

     ... Je vois que M. Dormer veut rester à Rosette, et en ce cas je
     n’y resterai pas. J’ai dit autant à Madame, pour lui donner le
     tems de se retirer à Alexandrie avant mon arrivée. Je coucherai
     demain à Raimhé; dimanche à Aboukir, lundi à Etikon, et mardi,
     s’il plaît à Dieu, je serai à Rosette, et si j’y trouve M. Dormer
     je n’y resterai qu’autant qu’il faudra pour empaqueter quelques
     livres, car je ne veux pas rester dans la même ville avec M.
     Dormer. J’aurais été charmé de le voir ici, mais je ne veux
     pas le voir à Rosette; ainsi, mon cher, persuadez-le de partir
     immédiatement; car si je le trouve je n’y coucherai pas; cela est
     certain.

What the ground of dissension was that induced Montagu to declare
that he would not remain in the same city with Dormer is not known.
Whatever it was, the Egyptian home was broken up. The wife and her
sister subsequently established themselves, temporarily, at Marseilles,
definitively at Nancy. Montagu moved about the Continent in moody
restlessness. In 1773 and the following year he settled for awhile in
Venice. He lived in frequent retirement, and to all outward appearance
in as truly a Turkish fashion as if he were a faithful child of Islam.

While Mr. Montagu was residing at Venice an illustrious traveller,
the Duke of Hamilton, arrived in that city, under the care of his
physician, Dr. John Moore, afterwards the author of ‘Zeluco,’ and the
father of a glorious son, Sir John Moore the hero of Corunna. The
Doctor had probably talked with his patron or ward about the more
eccentric traveller, of whom he had more to say than most people
as to the affair between Montagu and the Jew Payba, Moore having
been official medical man at the English Embassy in France, when
Lord Albemarle was ambassador, and Montagu was appealing to him for
aid and protection. At Venice, the Duke, according to Moore, ‘had
the curiosity’ (he does not say the _courtesy_) ‘to wait on this
extraordinary man.’ ‘Montagu,’ says the Doctor, in his published
letters,

     met his Grace at the stair-head, and led us through some
     apartments furnished in the Venetian manner, into an inner room in
     quite a different style. There were no chairs, but he desired us
     to seat ourselves on a sofa, whilst he placed himself on a cushion
     on the floor, with his legs crossed in the Turkish fashion. A
     young black slave sat by him, and a venerable old man, with a
     long beard, served us with coffee. After this collation some
     aromatic gums were brought, and burnt in a little silver vessel.
     Mr. Montagu held his nose over the steam for some minutes, and
     sniffed up the perfume with peculiar satisfaction; he afterwards
     endeavoured to collect the smoke with his hands, spreading and
     rubbing it carefully along his beard, which hung in hoary ringlets
     to his girdle.... We had a great deal of conversation with this
     venerable looking person, who is, to the last degree, acute,
     communicative, and entertaining, and in whose discourse and
     manners are blended the vivacity of a Frenchman with the gravity
     of a Turk.

Moore does not say that Montagu had assumed the Mohammedan faith,
but simply that he considered the Turkish way of life to surpass
that of all other nations. Indeed they deserved to be ‘the happiest
of mankind,’ if they were, as Montagu held them to be, distinguished
for integrity, hospitality, and most other virtues. Egypt was, in his
eyes, ‘a perfect paradise,’ to which he was longing to return; and he
was convinced that if the Israelites of old could have had their own
way they would have stuck to the land and the flesh-pots and driven
the Egyptians into Canaan. But he added, with a fine sense of what
the occasion required, that ‘it had been otherwise ordered, for wise
purposes, of which it did not become us to judge.’

Subsequently Montagu returned the visit of the Duke and his medical
guardian. He seated himself on a sofa with his legs drawn up under
him, as the most natural and convenient position that a gentleman
could take. Moore, in the course of the conversation which ensued,
slily adverted to the Mohammedan views with regard to women. The
quasi Turk became Oriental to the very ends of his fingers, and grew
eloquent on this delicate question. Of course, he defended polygamy
and concubinage, even as Solomon had wisely observed it. Women liked
neither, and but for this foolish objection they would have had
influence enough to have spread Islam as one religion throughout
Europe. The men hated Christianity on more valid ground. Auricular
confession they abhorred. ‘No Turk of any delicacy would ever allow his
wife (particularly if he had but one) to hold private conference with
a man on any pretext whatever.’ When the Doctor (for the Duke seems to
have been generally silent) insinuated that the Turks had not the same
grounds to hate Protestantism, Montagu remarked that the Turks could
not tolerate the Christian idea of the equality of women and men, nor
accept the Christian view of an exceedingly dull heaven, where the
souls of ordinary women were to be assembled, instead of the graceful
bodies of Houris, who were to welcome the sons of Islam to a joyous
paradise.

The self-exile continued to be the observed of all curious travellers;
but he directed his steps at last in the direction of home, if with
no decided resolution to return thither. The cause, perhaps, is found
in a phrase of a letter from Mrs. Delany, written in February 1776:
‘Mr. Wortley Montagu’s wife is dead.’ This was the laundress, his only
legitimate wife, who had married him in his youthful time. Her husband
had recently been entertaining Romney, and Romney had painted the
portrait of his friend in Turkish costume, which bespeaks the talent
of the artist and the sad yet manly beauty of the friend. The latter
had been the victim of more lies and jests than any man of his time,
and these were multiplied now, but they are not worth repeating. The
wanderer himself was near the end of his course. Two months subsequent
to his lawful wife’s decease he died, after a brief illness, at Padua.
He is said to have expressed a hope that he should die as a good
Moslem; but that he was held to have died in the Roman Catholic faith
is best proved by the fact that he lies beneath a church roof in Padua,
and with a Latin inscription over him, which describes him as ‘ubique
civis,’ and which credits him with nearly all the qualities that can
dignify humanity. If much eccentricity has been ascribed to him by
the world, it is because his acts and words gave some warrant for it.
There was scarcely any condition in life but in some country or another
he had assumed it. He used to boast that he had never committed a
_small_ folly; and his gambling was certainly, at one time, of gigantic
proportions. A memoir of him, published in Dublin two years after
his death, reckoned among his boyish assumptions those of link-boy,
chimney-sweep, and shoe-black! The same veracious volume numbered among
his wives, with the English laundress, a Dutch Jewess, a Turkish lady,
a Greek girl, a Circassian damsel, and an Arabian maiden. Even to the
English laundress he is said to have been married by an official of
the Fleet prison. His old tutor, Forster, claimed the merit of having
written the work on Ancient Republics, but this claim, made when
the author could not answer it, was universally scouted, as was the
contemptible pretender. Lady Louisa Stuart, referring to the various
ladies who assumed a right to bear his name, remarks:--

     More than one lady took the title of his wife, with or without
     the pretext of a ceremony which, it is to be feared, he would
     not scruple to go through any number of times, if requisite
     for the accomplishment of his wishes. But the last person so
     circumstanced, and the loudest in asserting her claims, met him
     upon equal ground, having herself a husband living, from whom
     she had eloped; therefore, she at least could not complain of
     deception.

The above lady was the _ci-devant_ Miss Dormer. She appeared in London
soon after Edward Wortley Montagu’s death; and in her family papers it
is stated that she received one hundred pounds annually from Coutts’s
out of her alleged husband’s estate. For a long period she resided
at Nancy, and she may yet live in the recollection of not very old
persons, English and others, who dwelt in that pleasant city in their
youth, for the last of the wives of Wortley Montagu survived till
January 1821. She lived and died as Countess of Montagu, and her death
finally closed a romance of real life, the unfortunate hero of which
would probably have won honourable fame if he had been blessed with a
mother of a different quality.

_ROYAL AND IMPERIAL JOKERS._

In that marvellous work of history, the ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire,’ Gibbon somewhere remarks, in reference to sovereign ladies
in love, that they are by their social position, or rather by their
position above society, placed at a manifest disadvantage, inasmuch as
the first advances must come from themselves. If this was the case in
the olden time, it is not exactly so now--though, of course, the outer
world knows little about the matter. Many princesses have not been
at all troubled at the idea of having to speak, or look, first; and
the great Russian Czarina had as little embarrassment in choosing her
lovers as she had in murdering that holy and august madman, her husband.

The well-favoured individuals on whom high and mighty princesses have
been ready to smile had a delicate task to perform. They had to look
more than twice before they leaped, and were compelled to feel their
way very cautiously lest a false step or a too boldly ventured word
should cost them their head. But after all this perilous condition of
aspiring lovers was as nothing compared with the dangers of too wittily
endowed courtiers who should indulge in jesting with a king, especially
of the olden type and of mediæval and morose temper. When the courtiers
of Amarose, King of Little Britain, gently awoke him with the glee--

     ‘Awake, awake your royal nob,
     The kettle boils upon the hob’--

his surly and too suddenly aroused majesty descended to his tea, toast,
and eggs, entered the breakfast-room with the gracious greeting, ‘My
lords and gentlemen, get out!’ King Arthur, in ‘Tom Thumb,’ returns
homage in much the same civil humour. These, however, are but stage
kings--kings of shreds and patches. The flesh-and-blood, genuine,
despotic monarch was a far more dreadful animal.

Jesting with kings, particularly uninvited--why, it was as if a
swimmer, however experienced, should venture within the smooth but
death-bearing current of Niagara, which inevitably carries all within
its power over the Falls. People have played little teasing jokes with
elephants, and when the jokers have forgotten all about it the gravely
majestic beast has put his foot upon the offender, and crushed the
humour out of him for ever. It has been just so with malice-bearing
monarchs, and with courtiers who thought they might joke with them.
The incarnation of all such monarchs existed in the person of an
African king named Chaka. He was given to joking at others, and woe
betide them if they did not burst with ecstacy at the joke; but if
a ‘fellow of infinite humour’ happened to cap the royal joke with a
better, Chaka broke into hilarity, which he ended by exclaiming, ‘Cut
off that wretch’s head; he has made me laugh.’

The Cæsars must have been almost as dreadfully dangerous men to joke
with as Chaka. The great Julius, indeed, after he became great, had no
leisure for jesting, but was the object of some popular jokes which he
took with indifference. The guests of Augustus were afraid to ‘crack
a joke’ in his presence. They would whisper one to a neighbour, and
then turn pale if the emperor invited them to ‘speak up.’ The imperial
table was as grand and dull as that of the copper Augustus, Louis
the Fourteenth, and the emperor had recourse to merryandrews, just
as the Grand Monarque had to harlequins. But the harlequins of those
days were gentlemen and scholars. The grim Tiberius, on the other
hand, was remarkably facetious. His delight was to puzzle his learned
guests with unanswerable questions, such as, ‘What was the name of the
song the Syrens sang?’ and the like. Fancy half a dozen members of
the Society of Antiquaries dining with her Majesty and being gravely
asked who built the marble halls the Bohemian girl dreamt she dwelt
in? or what was the Christian name of the ‘Minstrel Boy?’ and at what
period ‘Auld lang syne’ had been young? Nevertheless, Tiberius was a
nicer man to deal with than Caligula, all of whose jests were brutally
cruel, in words, and oftener in deeds. What a serious joke was that
when, having nothing on but the linen apron of a victim-slayer, he
raised the mallet, and instead of slaying the beast, knocked out the
brains of the sacrificing priest! Claudius was too huge a feeder to
have appetite for wit; but he would have eaten the whole beast that
his predecessor should have killed. Yet Claudius, half beast himself,
had a good deal of the scholar in him; as Nero had, who loved science,
admired art, was mildly witty, and therewith as savage as an insane
hyæna. We must except the occasions of his visiting the theatre, when
he sat in an upper seat, and found delight in flinging nuts down upon
the bald head of the prætor below. That official was as proud of the
attention as if every nut had been an especial honour. Joyless Galba
had none of the Neronic fun in him. But though not mirthful himself,
Galba could smile when he heard the popular slang name, in allusion to
his flat nose, ‘Simius.’ His successor, Otho, was just such a wit as
a man might be expected to be who washed his face in asses’ milk. If
witty men went away from him feeling dull and heavy, it was the result
of their exchanging ideas with their imperial master. He had his wit at
second-hand, as Vitellius had, who got his jokes from a stage-player
and charioteer. In more modern times, when Astley’s was in its glory,
and the clown of the ring a joker that people went to listen to, that
circus clown got his jokes, not from his own brains, but from the
Westminster boys. Jokes used to be made at Westminster as they now are
at the Stock Exchange, where fresh batches are served each morning,
like hot rolls. But to return to the Cæsars. Perhaps Vespasian was a
greater joker than any of them, but his jokes were often broad and
scurrilous. Titus was rather gracious than given to jesting, though he
enjoyed one sorry joke, in promising to every suitor that his request
should be granted. They went away radiant. ‘Every one,’ he said,
‘ought to depart joyfully from the presence of his prince;’ and then,
‘the delight of mankind’ thought no more of his promise. The chief
recreation of the gloomy Domitian was in playing dice; but he always
won. Every antagonist knew what the joke would cost him if he beat the
emperor.

Altogether, those Twelve Cæsars were men compounded of the most
opposite qualities, with a small modicum of what is called wit among
the whole of them. Out of all those who followed, one alone, Hadrian,
made a standing and a sterling joke--a joke which has descended to us
and added a slang phrase to our vulgar tongue. To ‘scrape acquaintance’
comes to us from Hadrian. He was at the public baths one day when he
saw one of his veteran soldiers scraping his body with a tile. That was
such poor luxury that Hadrian ordered that his old comrade should be
supplied with more suitable cleansing materials, and also with money.
On a subsequent occasion when the emperor again went to the bath, the
spectacle before him was highly amusing. A score of old soldiers who
had fought under Hadrian were standing in the water, and each was
currying himself with a tile and wincing at the self-inflicted rubbing.
The emperor perfectly understood what he saw and what was the purpose
of the sight. ‘Ha! ha!’ he exclaimed, ‘you had better scrape one
another, my good fellows!’ He added, ‘You certainly shall not scrape
acquaintance with me!’

Heliogabalus was perhaps the most practical joker among the imperial
jesters. We have seen at the Surrey Oval, in old days, eleven
one-legged Greenwich pensioners playing cricket against eleven
pensioners with only one arm. By the way, the one-legged men had the
advantage, as the one-armed men often fell in stooping for the ball,
wanting the missing arm to balance themselves withal. It was the
humour of Heliogabalus to get together companies of individuals all
marked by the same peculiarity. He would now have at dinner a dozen
baldheaded men, or twelve ladies with one eye each; he would have
been delighted to have got hold of triple assortments of the three
famous sisters who had but one eye and one tooth between them! Failing
that, the ‘lord of the sun,’ as he called himself, was content to
have a score of hunchbacks, or of flat-nosed men, or squinting women.
He is said on one occasion to have put into a very small chamber,
where dinner was prepared, so many excessively fat and hungry men
that they had no room for anything but to perspire, and not much for
that. Heliogabalus was an expensive joker, but then his good people
paid for the fun, and he might therefore indulge his humour without
restraint at the time, or remorse after it. His supremely imperial joke
lay in placing a number of guests on table-couches (guests reclined,
and did not sit down to dinner) which were blown up with air instead
of being stuffed with wool. At a moment when the cups were filled to
the brim with the choicest wine, and the guests were lifting them
to their lips with anticipations of liquid Elysium, a tap was drawn
beneath the carpet, which suddenly emptied the couches of their air,
and consequently tumbled all the recliners on to the floor, where they
lay pell-mell, with wine spilt, goblets lost, and utter confusion
prevailing, except on the face of Heliogabalus, who looked on and
indulged in laughter inextinguishable. Having but indifferent appetite
himself, he was fond of sauces, and he highly rewarded any inventor of
a sauce that was to the imperial liking. But if it failed to tickle
his very sacred majesty’s palate he had recourse to a joke of a very
practical character indeed; that is to say, he condemned the unlucky
candidate for his favour to live upon nothing else but the sauce in
question until he had discovered another more successful in its object.
Fancy having to live on anchovy, without fish, for a twelvemonth, or
catsup and a little bread, from the Ides of March to the Kalends of
December! Think of what your palate and liver would be had you nothing
to sit down to but pickled walnuts without the chop, or mustard without
the beef, from Christmas to Easter, even if your wits enabled you to
make deliverance then.

There was grim but honest joking in the Emperor Carus. The frugal man
was once seated, as was his wont, on the grass, supping on dry bread,
grey peas, and stale bacon. He gave audience at the same time to
Persian ambassadors who came to sue for peace. As the emperor was about
to reply, he opened his mouth for the reception of a huge spoonful of
peas, but he paused to say--at the same time taking off his skull-cap
with his disengaged hand--‘Look here! If your master does not confess
the superiority of Rome, I will render Persia as destitute of trees
as my head is of hair.’ Having said which, he swallowed his shovelful
of peas, and chuckled as the Persian legates went homeward with that
significant message.

After all, this joke was made up of the rudest boasting. There is
something in it and its attending circumstances which remind one of the
last war in Europe. Rome declared war against Persia, and the Roman
cry was ‘The Tigris for a boundary!’ ‘To Susa!’ ‘To Ecbatana!’ and so
forth. The later cry of the enraptured Gauls, ‘Le Rhin! le Rhin!’ ‘À
Berlin! à Berlin!’ seem like Irish echoes of the old cry. What disaster
came of it Gibbon tells and readers of history remember, but even among
the degenerate Romans there was no one ignoble enough to set an example
to the poor French _feuilletonist_, who said of the brave German
officers that they would be too proud to brush French boots with their
blonde moustaches. Brave Frenchmen must have shuddered at this wretched
jest, and Louis Napoleon, who loved a good joke though he never made
one, must have curled his lip with indignation if he read the piece of
miserable wit over his coffee at Metz.

In Prussia, which dates as a kingdom from the year 1702, there is not
one of its seven kings who can be called a wit, though more than one
had what is far better, strong, far-seeing, uncommon sense. Unclean in
their vagaries the Prussian royal jokers have assuredly been, and one
or two admitted of no liberty whatever being taken with them, as far
as repartee went. So stern were the most of the Prussian margraves,
electors, and dukes, that, to express the peril of joking with them,
there arose the well-known popular proverb, ‘It is advisable not to
eat cherries with princes.’ The queens of Prussia, on the other hand,
brought their own wit with them into the royal family, and there was
not a sharper lady among them than Queen Sophia Charlotte, the first
queen of Prussia. Leibnitz, whom she delighted to honour as a man and a
philosopher, once asked her if she could imagine the infinitely little?
‘Why, of course I can!’ exclaimed the hilarious queen. ‘What a question
to ask the wife of Frederick the First!’

There was good common sense in the humour of Frederick the Great of
Prussia. In his hours of joviality with his boon companions, smoking
and drinking around a table, in a cottage specially devoted to such
recreation, the king was understood to be absent. Frederick gave the
loosest rein to his own spirit of jesting, and took the roughest jokes
of his guests with perfect good temper. He has been immoderately
praised for this control over himself; but in truth there was none. He
could always escape from raillery that was tinged with bitterness. At
critical moments, when an ordinary mortal, hard pressed by satirical
assailants, would lose his equanimity and fly into a rage, Fritz
could quietly remark, ‘Friends, the king has come back;’ after which
observation he neither joked himself nor was attacked by the jokers.
Neither did the king bear any ill-will if his own jesting was turned
roughly against him, and he was made to smart by a repartee more
stinging than the royal sarcasm which gave it birth.

There was often a childlike simplicity about the old soldier-king. He
would joke and laugh with the children in the streets of Potsdam, as he
slowly rode along on his veteran Molwitz gray. He loved to have them
at his stirrup, and watch them struggling to kiss his boot or pat the
proud old horse; and he would laugh joyously if their young throats set
up the famous chorus:

     Victoria! with us is God!
     The haughty foe lies there!

One Saturday afternoon they carried the matter further than his
patience would tolerate, and Fritz, raising his crutched cane
menacingly, cried out in affected anger, ‘Young rascals! to school
with you all! to school!’ The cry was met by a counter-shout from
the ragamuffins of ‘Ha! ha! Papa Fritz don’t know that there’s no
school on Saturday afternoon!’ At which the absolute king rode away
rebuked. His humour, however, made such rebuffs welcome. He took truths
from the popular tongue with alacrity. After the Seven Years’ War,
riding towards Sans Souci, he recognised an old fruit-woman near the
Brandenburg Gate, whom he remembered to have seen there before the war
broke out. Fritz at once greeted her with a ‘Well, mother, how have the
times been treating you?’ ‘Middling,’ was the concise reply; ‘but where
have you been for this ever so long?’ ‘Don’t you know, mother, I have
been making war for these seven years past?’ ‘How should I know?’ asked
the venerable Pomona, ‘and why should I care?

     “Rabble fight, and rabble slay;
     And rabble are friends another day.”’

Fritz laughed aloud, and rode away in high good humour. Do you think it
would be safe, say, for a prince of the blood to enter into colloquy
with the apple women at the Marble Arch or the fruit-sellers at St.
James’s Gate, when the guard is being relieved? Frederick William the
Third had a quiet humour of his own. There is one sample of it which
reminds one of what Henry the Fourth said to the mayor of a town whose
speech the king could hardly hear for the accompanying braying of a
donkey: ‘One at a time, gentlemen, if you please!’ When Frederick
William visited one of his provincial towns for the first time, the
chief clerical official of the district read to him a bombastically
inflated address. The king grew uneasy as the flattery was piled,
and at length he cut it all short, with an angry observation to his
adjutant, Colonel von Witzleben, ‘Can’t stand any more of it! The man
is pelting me with untruths.’ The king and the crown prince were good
mimics, and both brought their powers into play at a moment when a
farce was being acted in Berlin, which attracted all play-goers who
loved a laugh, king and court included. There was a favourite scene
in this farce, wherein a workman and his master quarrelled and were
reconciled. Great fun was caused by the way in which the workman
propitiated his wrathful master, by awkwardly holding out his hand,
and saying, in _dialect_, ‘Now, measter, nevertheless, no animosity
on no account!’ To this, said again and again, the master invariably
replied, ‘You know me better; am I not always that one which’----
In the expression given to these phrases by the two low comedians
there was a world of stage humour which delighted their audience, the
sovereign and his family, as much as any there. It happened at this
time that the king was kept waiting for his dinner by the tardiness
of the crown prince to appear. Now if we common mortals can bear only
with impatience being kept so waiting, you may judge if a king with
an appetite considers such an offence to be much below high treason.
Frederick William at last sat down in dudgeon; all his family sat down
too, in silence, looking at the crown prince’s vacant chair, with
a feeling that there was a storm coming. When his majesty had just
concluded his soup, his tardy royal highness entered the room. Seeing
how matters stood, he put on the sheepish look of the actor who played
the workman in the farce, approached the king in a loutish fashion,
extended his hand awkwardly, and exclaimed with country accent, ‘Now,
measter, nevertheless, no animosity on no account!’ Frederick William
took up the joke immediately. He put on the look of the other actor,
assumed his air and accent, and answered in his very voice, squeezing
his son’s hand the while, ‘Fritz, thou knowest me better; am I not
always that one which’---- You may suppose what a satisfied audience
listened to that bit of dialogue; and may lose yourself in conjecture
as to how a similar scene might be gone through with H.R.H. the Prince
of Wales and H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh giving imitations of Mr.
Compton and Mr. Buckstone in ‘Box and Cox.’

Kings of England in the olden time seldom made jokes, and more seldom
allowed them to be made by others, excepting professional jesters.
When we come to the Norman time we find the Conquistor so little able
to digest a joke that he declared war against the King of France for
making one at the expense of William’s obesity. The latter, indeed,
did try to answer the jest, but the answer missed its aim, and
William lost his life because he could not understand humour. Rufus,
on the contrary, indulged in such jesting as one might expect in an
ill-bred bachelor king of loose principles and looser companions. The
first Henry is handed down to us by successive historians as a man
of very facetious humour, but they afford no samples of the humorous
expression. Stephen had little leisure for anything but to keep his
seat in the saddle into which he had leaped after a severe struggle.
The humour of Henry the Second was of a sad-coloured hue; as it well
might be. It was sardonically indulged when he caused to be painted
on the wall of a chamber at Windsor and on the ceiling of a room at
Winchester a singular picture. The artist is nameless, but he must
have been the Landseer or the Ansdell of his day. The subject was an
old eagle attacked by his four eaglets. The youngest and fiercest of
the four was savagely picking at the parent eagle’s eyes. The king
used to smile a melancholy smile as courtiers gazed at this picture,
and did not penetrate, or seemed not to penetrate, the allegory which
it presented. Probably when they were beyond royal sight and hearing
they made good guesses at it, or the king interpreted it, and then it
was no treason to give circulation to Henry’s interpretation. The old
eagle was the monarch himself. The four eaglets were his obstinately
rebellious sons. The ruffianly youngest bird savagely trying to peck
the parent’s eyes out was the youngest and most ruffianly of his sons,
John. In that form the half-mad and most melancholy Henry manifested
his humour with regard to family affairs--an example which has not
been generally followed. In one of his sons, Richard the First, there
was much readiness of wit; and he especially loved to turn it against
the priests. To make a joke at the cost of an ecclesiastic was as good
to him as slaying an infidel. John’s jokes took a cruel form, drawing
Jews’ teeth to accelerate their disposition to lend money, and behaving
noisily at divine worship with an idea of humiliating some priest or
bishop who had offended him. His son Henry loved the arts and good
company. Of the three Edwards not one has come to our knowledge as
a joker, but the son of the last, the Black Prince, did once so far
stoop from his dignity as to, half jocularly, half angrily, call an
archbishop an ass. The second Richard never had an opportunity for
joking; and of the next three kings, Henry the Fifth alone, when Prince
of Wales, is said to have aired his wit a-nights about Eastcheap. But
what Shakespeare has made witty in relation never took place in point
of fact. All the Eastcheap doings are apocryphal, and the _Boar’s
Head_ never had beneath its roof-tree those joyous princely spirits in
whom we shall nevertheless continue to believe. Again, of the third
Richard’s jesting humour we have no other example than what Shakespeare
and Colley Cibber have invented for him. The seventh Henry was a dull
deep man; the eighth, one to laugh with if you felt especially sure
it would not shake your head off your shoulders. His son and his
daughters are not recorded in the annals of wit, and such stories as
have descended to us of James the First are of an unclean tendency, and
the best of them in point of mirth are by far the uncleanest. His son
Charles was too gentlemanlike and too grave to be such a joker as his
unkingly sire. His refinement of manner did not admit of coarseness,
with whatever wit it might be gilded, and the royal martyr is but
known, in respect of humour, for ‘King Charles’s Golden Rules,’ of
which, of course, he was _not_ the author.

If ever there was a man in whom we should not expect to find the
jesting spirit, that man is Oliver Cromwell. At the wedding festival,
however, of his daughter Frances with Mr. Rich, Oliver entered joyously
into all the jesting; so joyously that, in a moment of excitement, the
Protector whipt off his son Richard’s wig and pretended to throw it
into the fire. This he appeared to have done, but he had dexterously
conveyed it under him, and was sitting upon it, when the company were
looking for the wig upon the top of the coals. No clown, not even thou,
oh Joseph Grimaldi!--not even thou who wast an artist, true actor, in
whose every look there was a purpose, in every movement a meaning--not
even thou, oh best and greatest of the old pantomime clowns! couldst
have executed this trick with more rapidity, cleverness, and impudent
imperturbability than Oliver Cromwell exhibited on that occasion.
It was an occasion, by the way, when spilling of blood had like to
have happened through immoderate excess of the spirit of fun. Old Sir
Thomas Hillingsby was solemnly dancing, according to the fashion of
his younger days. He looked so like an insensible statue in motion,
that some daring young Puritan lads thought they might molest him
with impunity. They tried, as he slowly moved to and fro in measured
pace, to blacken his lips with burnt cork. They roused the old lion to
fury. The ex-gentleman usher to the Queen of Bohemia pulled out his
dagger, which he would have plunged between the ribs of the fellow most
actively concerned but for general interference. Some time elapsed
before harmony was restored.

It may be here objected that Cromwell was neither a royal nor an
imperial joker. He was nevertheless sovereign master of England, and
as despotic as any of them. We place him among them for much the same
reason which Richardson, the painter, gave to Queen Caroline, when she
went to see Richardson’s series of portraits of English kings, and
seeing Cromwell’s portrait among them, angrily asked how _he_, who was
no king, was placed in such company. ‘He was no king, indeed, madam,’
said Richardson, ‘but it is good for kings to have him among them.’

George the Second was not a humourist, but he would have made a
first-rate actor of ‘genteel comedy’ had not fate cast him for another
line of characters in the drama of life. Shortly after his accession
he commanded a play at the theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. The house
was full, but as the king kept it waiting, the murmurs of their
displeasure fell upon his ear as he entered his box, three-quarters
of an hour behind time. As he caught the unwelcome sounds he turned
to Mr. Rich, the manager, who waited on him, as if he might gather
from that official some explanation of the phenomenon. The greatest
of the intellectual harlequins of England honestly told the king that
his majesty was late, and that the audience did not seem to like it.
Whereupon the sovereign assumed the air of an unrighteously suspected
prince. He advanced to the front of his box, took out his watch with
the apparent conviction that it was an arbitrator which would render
him justice, and looking upon it, saw that it showed the time which he
knew it to be. _Then_ he appeared in a change of character. He gazed
at the audience with an expression bespeaking a guilty but a repentant
prince. He put himself as much outside of his box as the laws of
balancing would allow, and shaking his wigged head and very much powder
out of it, he laid his jewelled hand on the heart side of his sky-blue
velvet coat, and made a bow to the house, so superb in its apologetic
pantomime that the audience burst forth into hilarious hurrahing and
applauding, and all other possible symptoms, to demonstrate their
gladness and to express their consent to a full reconciliation of
prince and people.

The Thespian element was very strong too in the eldest son of George
the Third. If the first gentleman in Europe had not been born a
prince he might have made a very good livelihood as an actor. High
or low comedy, it would have been all the same to a player of such
versatility. He could have played Rover like Elliston, and his
imitations were as good as Mr. Toole’s. The best-wigged prince in
Christendom has, fortunately, had an historian who makes record of
his royal hero in the histrionic part of his profession. Raikes
is the chronicler, but the Duke of Wellington was the fountain of
intelligence.

‘When the king sent for me,’ said F.M. the Duke of Wellington to
Raikes, ‘to form a new Administration in 1828, he was then seriously
ill, though he would never allow it. I found him in bed, dressed in
a dirty silk jacket and a turban night-cap, one as greasy as the
other; for, notwithstanding his coquetry about dress in public, he was
extremely slovenly and dirty in private. The first words he said to me
were, “Arthur, the Cabinet is defunct;” and then he began to describe
the manner in which the late Ministers had taken leave of him on giving
in their resignations. This was accompanied by the most ludicrous
mimicry of the voice and manner of each individual, so strikingly like
that it was quite impossible to refrain from fits of laughter.’

This exhibition has been considered a proof of the king’s bad taste;
which it may be allowed to be. But there was equal bad taste on
the part of the Duke. If he had looked grave, the old bedridden
prince-actor would have been rebuked. Moreover, the king was quite as
capable and quite as willing to give an imitation of Arthur. Inimitable
as the latter was in certain respects, there were certain peculiarities
about him which the king would have hit off with as intense delight as
he felt when mimicking his majesty’s servants, Viscounts Goderich and
Palmerston.

With George the Fourth’s successor there was no indisposition to
joke, but the royal humour was of an ordinary quality. And yet it was
eccentric too. King William would not, like his brother of Cambridge,
have said to a chaplain at a public dinner, ‘Come, d---- it, do say
_grace_, and let us begin!’ but he could not resist heightening a
jest by a strong expletive; as, for instance, in the case of Captain
and Mrs. Marryat, who were at a royal reception at the Pavilion, in
King William’s time, and from which they were anxious to get away at
a certain hour, in order to fulfil another engagement. Mrs. Marryat
looked anxiously at the clock, and King William, catching her more
than once in the fact, good-humouredly asked her the cause of her
uneasiness. The lady frankly replied. ‘Well,’ said his majesty, ‘then
why do you not leave at once?’ Mrs. Marryat had to inform him that it
would be a breach of etiquette to leave the room while their majesties
were still there. ‘Oh, d---- it!’ said the bluff monarch; ‘if that’s
the case, come along o’ me; I’ll smuggle you out.’ On state occasions,
however, a breach of etiquette would fairly take the king’s breath
away. This is exemplified by what occurred at one of his first levées.
Seeing an admiral, with whom he had been shipmate, bowing before him,
the king cordially expressed his gladness at seeing his old comrade;
adding, ‘and I hope you are quite well?’ The proper course would have
been to simply answer the remark made. But the over-polite admiral
replied, ‘Quite well, your majesty. I hope your majesty is well?’
The breach of etiquette was in making a remark to the king which
implied the necessity of an answer. King William quite blushed with
confusion, and did not recover himself till dinner-time. One of his
own jokes he enjoyed amazingly; and notably one which he played off
soon after his accession. After his arrival at St. James’s Palace the
populace summoned him again and again to the window to offer him the
congratulations of their sweet voices. King William presented himself
again and again, till twilight came on and he was tired of it. As
the ‘gloaming’ thickened, and identity was a matter of difficulty,
the king sent an old naval officer to bow for him at the window. At
every summons the officer stepped forward and acted king, bowing and
retiring, till it became too dark to make out whether any one was at
the window or not. Then the loyal _mobile_ dispersed, and the affair
was a joke for the remainder of the night at the jovial monarch’s table.

And now we are called upon to pause, just as we had finished only the
prologue to our drama. But if people _will_ make prologues as long as
plays, editors will call out, _Lusisti satis!_ and the play is deferred
to a more convenient opportunity.

LONDON: PRINTED BY

SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE

AND PARLIAMENT STREET

STANDARD WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

RICHARD BENTLEY & SON.

     The AUTOBIOGRAPHY of PRINCE METTERNICH. Edited by his Son, Prince
     RICHARD METTERNICH, and Translated by ROBINA NAPIER. 4 vols. demy
     8vo. with Portrait and Facsimiles, 72_s._

     The LIFE of LORD PALMERSTON. With Selections from his Diaries and
     Correspondence. By the Hon. EVELYN ASHLEY, M.P. The New Edition, 2
     vols. crown 8vo. with Frontispiece to each volume, 12_s._

     LORD BEACONSFIELD: his Life, Character, and Works. From the German
     of GEORG BRANDES. By JANE STURGE. Demy 8vo. 6_s._

     MEMOIR of EARL SPENCER (Lord Althorp). By Sir DENIS LE MARCHANT,
     Bart. Demy 8vo. 16_s._

     HISTORICAL CHARACTERS: Talleyrand, Mackintosh, Cobbet, Canning,
     Peel. By Lord DALDING and BULWER. Fifth and Enlarged Edition.
     Crown 8vo. 6_s._

     A MEMOIR of CHARLES the TWELFTH of SWEDEN. By his Majesty OSCAR
     II. Translated, by special permission, by GEORGE APGEORGE, Her
     Britannic Majesty’s Consul at Stockholm. Royal 8vo. with Two
     Illustrations, 12_s._

     The FRENCH HUMORISTS from the TWELFTH to the NINETEENTH CENTURY.
     By WALTER BESANT, M.A., Christ’s Coll., Cambridge, Author of
     ‘Studies in Early French Poetry,’ &c. Demy 8vo. 15_s._

     The LIVES of WITS and HUMORISTS. By JOHN TIMBS, F.S.A. 2 vols.
     crown 8vo. with Portrait. 12_s._ The LIVES of the LATER WITS and
     HUMORISTS. In 2 vols. crown 8vo. 12_s._

     The LIVES of PAINTERS. By JOHN TIMBS, F.S.A., Author of ‘A Century
     of Anecdote,’ &c. Crown 8vo. with Portraits, 6_s._

     The LIFE of OLIVER CROMWELL. From the French of M. GUIZOT. By
     ANDREW SCOBLE. Crown 8vo. with Four Portraits, 6_s._

     The LIFE of MARY QUEEN of SCOTS. From the French of M. MIGNET. By
     ANDREW SCOBLE. Crown 8vo. with Two Portraits, 6_s._

     The INGOLDSBY LEGENDS; or, Mirth and Marvels. By Rev. RICHARD
     HARRIS BARHAM. The Annotated Edition, 2 vols. demy 8vo.
     Illustrated by Cruikshank and Leech, 24_s._ The Illustrated
     Edition, printed on toned paper, crown 4to. bevelled boards, gilt
     edges 21_s._; or, in white binding, 22_s._ 6_d._ The Carmine
     Edition, with border line round each page, with Seventeen
     Illustrations, bevelled boards, gilt edges, 10_s._ 6_d._ The
     Burlington Edition, 3 vols. fcp. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._ The Edinburgh
     Edition, crown 8vo. with Thirty-two Engravings by Cruikshank,
     Leech, Tenniel, and Du Maurier, cloth, 6_s._ The (New) Popular
     Edition, crown 8vo. cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ The Victoria (Pocket)
     Edition, in fcp. 8vo. cloth, 2_s._

     The BENTLEY BALLADS. Selected from ‘Bentley’s Miscellany.’ Crown
     8vo. 6_s._

     STUDIES in ENGLISH ART. By FREDERICK WEDMORE. Second Series. Crown
     8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._

     The NOVELS of MISS AUSTEN. The only Complete Edition. 6 vols.
     crown 8vo. with a Frontispiece to each volume, 36_s._; or each
     volume separately, 6_s._

     The WORKS of THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK. The Collected Edition, including
     his Novels, Fugitive Pieces, Poems, &c. Edited by Sir HENRY COLE,
     K.C.B., and with Preface by Lord HOUGHTON. 3 vols. crown 8vo. with
     Portrait, 31_s._ 6_d._

     The NOVELS of MISS BROUGHTON. 7 vols. crown 8vo. 42_s._; or each
     volume separately, 6_s._

     The NOVELS of MRS. HENRY WOOD. 27 vols. crown 8vo. £8. 2_s._; or
     each volume separately, 6_s._

     London: RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, 8 New Burlington Street, Publishers
     in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen.

STANDARD WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

RICHARD BENTLEY & SON.

     The HISTORY of ANTIQUITY. From the German of MAX DUNCKER. By
     EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A., LL.D., of Balliol College, Oxford. The first
     4 vols. are now published in demy 8vo. 21_s._ each.

     The HISTORY of ROME. From the German of THEODOR MOMMSEN. By the
     Rev. W. P. DICKSON. With an Introduction by Dr. SCHMITZ. The
     Library Edition, 4 vols. demy 8vo. 75_s._; or the Popular Edition,
     4 vols. crown 8vo. 46_s._ 6_d._

     The HISTORY of GREECE. From the German of ERNST CURTIUS. By A. W.
     WARD, M.A. 5 vols. demy 8vo. 90_s._

     The RISE and PROGRESS of the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. By Sir EDWARD
     CREASY, late Chief Justice of Ceylon. Twelfth Edition. Crown 8vo.
     7_s._ 6_d._

     The LIVES of the QUEENS of ENGLAND of the HOUSE of HANOVER. By
     JOHN DORAN, F.S.A., Author of ‘London in the Jacobite Times’ &c.
     Fourth and Enlarged Edition. 2 vols. demy 8vo. 25_s._

     The NAVAL HISTORY of GREAT BRITAIN (1793-1827). By WILLIAM JAMES.
     With a Continuation by Captain CHAMIER. 6 vols. crown 8vo. with
     Portraits, 36_s._

     The HISTORY of the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. By Colonel FLETCHER. 3
     vols. demy 8vo. 54_s._

     The FIFTEEN DECISIVE BATTLES of the WORLD, from Marathon to
     Waterloo. By Sir EDWARD CREASY, late Chief Justice of Ceylon.
     Library Edition. Demy 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._; or the Popular Edition,
     the Twenty-seventh, cr. 8vo. 6_s._

     The HISTORY of the OTTOMAN TURKS, from the Beginning of their
     Empire to the Close of 1878. By Sir EDWARD CREASY, late Chief
     Justice of Ceylon. A New and Revised Edition, being the Fifth.
     Crown 8vo. 6_s._

     CURIOSITIES of NATURAL HISTORY. By FRANK BUCKLAND. The Popular
     Edition. With Illustrations, in 4 vols. small crown 8vo. 14_s._
     Each Volume can be had separately, price 3_s._ 6_d._

     PRECIOUS STONES: their History and Mystery. By WILLIAM JONES,
     F.S.A. Crown 8vo. 6_s._

     The HEAVENS: an Illustrated Handbook of Popular Astronomy. By
     AMÉDÉE GUILLEMIN. Edited by J. NORMAN LOCKYER, F.R.A.S. Revised
     Edition. Demy 8vo. with over 200 Illustrations, 12_s._

     ADAM and the ADAMITE; or, the Harmony of Scripture and Ethnology.
     By DOMINICK MCCAUSLAND, Q.C. Crown 8vo. with Map, 6_s._

     SERMONS in STONES; or, Scripture confirmed by Geology. By DOMINICK
     MCCAUSLAND, Q.C. New Edition, with Memoir of the Author. Crown
     8vo. with 19 Illustrations, 6_s._

     The BUILDERS of BABEL; or, the Confusion of Languages. By DOMINICK
     MCCAUSLAND, Q.C. Crown 8vo. 6_s._

     ESSAYS, Classical and Theological. By the late CONNOP THIRLWALL,
     D.D., Bishop of St. David’s. Edited by the Rev. Canon PEROWNE.
     Demy 8vo. 20_s._

     The CHURCH and its ORDINANCES. Sermons by the late WALTER FARQUHAR
     HOOK, D.D., Dean of Chichester. Edited by the Rev. WALTER HOOK,
     Rector of Porlock. 2 vols. demy 8vo. 10_s._ _6d._

     The LIVES of the ARCHBISHOPS of CANTERBURY, from St. Augustine to
     Juxon. By the late WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D., Dean of Chichester.
     11 vols. demy 8vo. £8. 5_s._

     The LIFE and LETTERS of WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, late Dean of
     Chichester. Edited by the Rev. W. R. W. STEPHENS, Prebendary of
     Chichester, &c. The Popular Edition, in 1 vol. crown 8vo. with
     Index and Portrait, 6_s._

     London: RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, 8 New Burlington Street, Publishers
     in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen.