* Gentilhomme, i. e. person of ancient family. —Trans.
ENGLISH NOBILITY.
71
has ceased also. It is this of which the English are ignorant."
" It is true," I answered, " that though still preserving much feudal pride, they have lost the spirit of feudal institutions. In England, chivalry has ceded to industry, which has readily consented to take Tip its abode in a baronial constitution, on condition that the ancient privileges attached to names should be placed within reach of newly founded families.
" By this social revolution, the result of a succession of political changes, hereditary rights are no longer attached to a class, but are transferred to individuals, to offices, and to estates. Formerly the warrior ennobled the land that he won ; now it is the possession of the land which constitutes the noble; and what is called a nobility in England, appears to me to be nothing more than a class that is rich enough to pay for wearing a certain dress. This monied aristoeracv differs, no doubt, very greatly from the aristocracy of blood. Rank that has been bought, is an evidence of the intelligence and activity of the man ; rank that has been inherited is an evidence of the favour of Providence. *
" The confusion of ideas respecting the two kinds of aristocracy, that of money and that of birth, is such in England, that the descendants of a family, whose name belongs to the history of the country, if they happen to be poor and are without title, will tell you
they are not noble; while my Lord(grandson of
a tailor), forms, as member of the house of peers, a part of the high aristocracy of the land."
* Atteste la faveur de la Providence
72ENGLISH NOBILITY.
"I knew that we should agree," replied the prince, with a graceful gravity that is peculiar to him.
Struck witli this easy manner of making acquaintance, I began to examine the countryman of the Prince
К, Prince D, the celebrity of whose name
had already attracted my attention. I beheld a man still young: his complexion wore a leaden hue; a quiet patient expression was visible in his eye ; but his forehead was full, his figure tall, and throughout his person there was a regularity which accorded with the coldness of his manners, and the harmony produced by which was not unpleasing.
Prince К, who never tired of conversation
continued: —
" To prove to you that the English notions of nobility differ from ours, I will relate a little anecdote which will perhaps amuse you.
(í In 1814 I attended the Emperor Alexander on his visit to London. At that time his majesty honoured me with much confidence, which procured for me many marks of kindness on the part of the Prince of Wales, then regent. This prince took me aside one day, and said to me, ¢ I should like to do something that would be agreeable to the emperor. He appears to have a great regard for the physician who accompanies him; could I confer on this person any favour that would please your master?'
" ( You could, sir,' I replied.
" ' What, then, should it be ?'
" < Nobility.'
" On the morrow the doctor was made a knight. The emperor took pains to ascertain the nature of the distinction which thus constituted his physician a
GOOD MANNERS.
73
Sir, and his physician's wife, a Lady; but, although his powers of comprehension were good, he died without being able to understand our explanations, or the value of the new dignity conferred upon his medical man."
" The ignorance of the Emperor Alexander," I replied, "is justified by that of many well-informed men: look at the greater mmiber of novels in which foreigners attempt to depict English society." This discourse served as a prelude to a most agreeable conversation, which lasted several hours. The tone of society among the higher ranks in Russia is marked by an easy politeness, the secret of which is almost lost among oiu`selves.
Every one, not even exchiding the French secretary of Prince K., appears modest, superior to the little cares and contrivances of vanity and self-love, and consecpiently, exempt from their mistakes and mortifications. If it is this that one gains from living under a despotism, vive la Russie!* How can polished manners subsist in a country where nothing is respected, seeing that l·on ton is only discernment in testifying respect. Let us begin again by showing respect to those who have a right to deference, and we shall again become naturally, and so to speak, involuntarily polite.
Notwithstanding the reserve which I threw into
* The author here requests a liberal construction on the part of the reader, in order to reconcile his apparent contradictions. It is only from a frank statement of the various contradictory views that present themselves to the mind that definitive conclusions are eventually to be attained.
VOL. I.E
74FREEDOM ОГ SPEECH. — CANNING.
my answers to the Prince К, the old diplomatist
quickly discovered the tendency of my views.
" You do not belong either to your country or to your age," said he, " you are an enemy to the power of speech as a political engine."
" It is true," I replied; " any other way of ascertaining the worth of men appears to me preferable to public speaking, in a country where self-love is so easily excited as in mine. I do not believe that there could be found in France many men who would not sacrifice their most cherished opinions to the desire of having it said that they had made a good speech."
" Nevertheless," pursued the liberal Russian prince "everything is included in the gift of language; everything that is in man, and something even beyond, reveals itself by discourse: there is divinity in speech."
" I agree with you," I replied; " and it is for that very reason that I dread to see it prostituted."
" When a genius like that of Mr. Canning's," continued the prince, "enchained the attention of the first men of England and of the world, surely political speech was something great and glorious."
" What good has this brilliant genius produced ? And what evil would he not have caused if he had had inflammable minds for auditors? Speech employed in private, as a means of persuasion, to change the direction of ideas, to influence the action of a man, or of a small number of men, appeal's to me useful, either as an auxiliary, or as a counterbalance to power; but I fear it in a large political assembly whose deliberations are conducted in public. It too often secures a triumph to limited views and fallacious popular notions, at the expense of lofty,
CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION.75
far-sighted conceptions, and plans profoundly laid. To impose upon nations the domination of majorities is to subject them to mediocrity. If such is not your object, you do wrong to laud oratorical influence. The politics of large assemblies are almost always timid, sordid, and rapacious. You oppose to this the case of England : that country is not what it is supposed to be. It is true that in its houses of parliament questions arc decided by the majority ; but this majority represents the aristocracy of the land, which for a long tune has not ceased, except at very brief intervals, to direct the affairs of the state. Besides, to what refuges of lies have not parliamentary forms compelled the leaders of this masked oligarchy to descend ? Is it for this that you envy England ? "