Chapter III: Part 3

If any doubt existed, a further security might be given under all circumstances, by adopting the plan recommended by Colonel Smith, the late Master of the Calcutta Mint. His proposal is, 'that the new sovereign shall be changeable for gold bullion at the present price.' This would cause the value of the new coin to remain equal with that of the present coin, exactly as the value of the existing silver coinage is maintained. The present shilling, even when of full weight, is by no means worth its weight in the metal of which it is made. The pound troy of standard silver is, and has been in England, since 1817, coined into sixty-six shillings. The value of the shilling, thus debased, is maintained at the proper level by the coin being limited, as a legal tender, to 42s. by tale. The result is obvious. Silver of the value of something like 18s. does service for 20s. What is more, this has been the case for years, and no one has ever been injured by it. And the same effect would surely follow if Colonel Smith's plan were carried out. If the holder of 100 sovereigns were to desire to convert them into gold, he would take them to the Bank of England, who would give, as now, a certain quantity of bar gold of standard fineness, at £3 17s. 10½d. per oz. The sovereign would, to a certain extent, become a 'token' coin; that is to say, each sovereign would, as the shilling is now, be worth something less than the stamped value. But it would, within the limits of the convention, that is, within the limits of the civilized world, be current exactly to the extent of its nominal value; and any one desiring to employ it beyond the limits of the Convention would be placed in exactly the position in which he is now, by simply taking his gold coins to the Bank of England and exchanging them for bar gold. A further advantage would arise from this diminution in weight of the sovereign. As the sovereign is worth a fraction over ten rupees in India, it follows that the internationalization of the English sovereign, and the reducing it by about twopence, to make it equal with twenty-five francs or five dollars, would immediately rectify the present difference between the British sovereign and the 10-rupee piece; and the rupee, the British florin, and the Australian florin would, in the international scheme of coinage, ultimately become absolutely identical, so far at least as gold coinage is concerned.[4]

Any alteration of coin in so backward a country as India would have to be introduced with great caution; but the advantage of assimilating the currency to that of this country cannot be doubted. There are great disadvantages in allowing coins, nearly identical in value, to circulate together; and if the 'sovereign' remains at the present value, what Mr. Jevons anticipates may not be unlikely to happen.

'It is only necessary for the Continental nations and the
United States to issue, as is already proposed, a piece of
twenty-five francs in order to supplant the sovereign; for,
as the new coin would have the value of a well-worn
sovereign, it would soon be accepted equally with the
sovereign in all foreign countries and our colonies, if not
at home. At the same time, the difference of value being
about 2d. in the pound, would ensure the melting of all new
sovereigns in preference. Thus, however many sovereigns are
coined, we should never succeed in dislodging the 25-franc
piece from circulation. More even than at present our
British Mints would perform the labours of the Danaïdes,
ever pouring forth new and beautiful coin, at once to
disappear into the bullion dealer's crucible. The sovereign
would be an evanescent coin, constantly liable to be
recoined with the permanent impress of a foreign mint.
Common sense, as well as invariable experience, tells us
that we must be worsted in this contest of the heavier and
the lighter coin.'--_Professor Jevons' Paper in the Journal
of the Statistical Society_, vol. xxxi., p. 429.

The extent of the populations employing the 20-franc piece as their principal gold coin, has already been mentioned. Some persons may say, 'It is true these nations more than double in number the persons whose basis of accounts is the pound sterling; but still there may be more "sovereigns" in existence than 20-franc pieces.' Now, it is by no means as easy to enumerate the coins in a country as to make a census of the inhabitants. You may count the dwellers in the poorest hovel. But you cannot count the coins hidden under the hearth, or in the end of the stocking. It is, however, by no means clear that the amount of British gold coin in existence is as much as that circulated by several other nations. Sovereigns, so far from preponderating, appear to be in an absolute minority. At the Paris Conference of 1867, the amounts of the gold coinage of Great Britain, France, and the United States were stated as follows:--

France, from 1793 to 1866, of the value of £262,444,160
Great Britain, 1816 to 1866 187,068,290
United States, 1792 to 1866 169,107,318[5]

It is, of course, impossible to state with certainty what proportion of coins struck at any mint at any time remain in existence afterwards. Some coins are called in, some are lost, others find their way to the melting-pot: it is impossible to say how many continue to circulate. One thing, however, is certain, that whatever casualties of this nature any coins are exposed to, British coins feel to the fullest extent. The rapidity of circulation in Great Britain tends to great deterioration from wear and tear. The absence of seigniorage causes our coinage to be relatively undervalued in proportion to other gold coins.[6] Even supposing British coins to remain current as long as those of other nations, they are certainly less numerous. They are probably far less frequently hoarded. The coinage returns from 1851 to 1866 inclusive show the relative proportions even more clearly than the earlier statements. Our Mint was less fertile during that time, than either the Mints of France or the United States.

YEARS 1851 TO 1866.
Great Britain struck in gold coins £91,000,000
The United States 131,600,000
France 197,400,000
-----------
420,000,000

The amount of gold coin in a country is very far from being an indication, either of its wealth or of its business transactions; but these figures suffice to show that the sovereign does not hold the pre-eminence frequently ascribed to it. Even if the proceeds of the Sydney Mint are added in, the sovereign will still be found in the minority. The Sydney Mint was established in 1855. The coinage has been as follows:--

Average
Years. Coinage. per annum.
7 years 1855 to 1861 £ 8,438,162 £1,205,451
5 " 1862 to 1866 11,889,838 2,377,967
-----------
£20,328,000

And it must not be assumed that all these Australian sovereigns are in circulation now. An imperfection in the process of refining incident on carrying on that operation in a new country, left a certain portion of silver at all events in the earlier mintages, and this circumstance is believed to have made these coins favourites with the 'melters.' Sir A. Donaldson, formerly Colonial Secretary, and Colonial Treasurer to the Government of New South Wales, gave evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Sydney Branch Mint, appointed in 1862; and, after stating that he believed that a considerable number of the Australian sovereigns have reached England, added, 'as a matter of fact, I think they all find their way to the refiner.' Mr. W. Miller, of the Bank of England, when examined before the same Committee, 'understood that upwards of 2,000,000 were sent to this country some time ago, and that they have been melted.' This was before the proclamation making these coins legal tender in this country. They have probably been less frequently melted since that proclamation. But it cannot be assumed that the whole twenty millions are still in circulation. Even including all of them, the sovereign would not be the preponderating coin as far as number is concerned.

Mr. Hendriks, a very eminent statistician, who has paid much attention to questions connected with the coinage (_vide Journal of the Society of Arts_, February 14, 1868), has given to the public the grounds upon which he bases his opinion that, although the sovereign and the dollar may be more widely diffused than the Napoleon, there are now current in the world twice as many Napoleons as sovereigns, four times as many as half-eagle or five-dollar pieces, and about one-third more than sovereigns and half-eagle pieces together. This writer has also made the following calculations, showing the relative importance of the United States, England, and France, as the chief manufacturing countries of coinage since 1792. The object of the division of the results into separate periods is to show the altered condition since the gold discoveries in California and Australia.

PERCENTAGE OF THE COINAGE OF THE THREE
NATIONS TO THEIR TOTAL COINAGE.

Years Years Years
1792 to 1851. 1861 to 1866. 1792 to 1866
United States 18-1/3 31-1/2 27-1/3
England 43-2/3 21-1/2 30-1/3
France 33 47 42-1/3
------ ------ ------
100 100 100

In further commenting, in the pages of the _Economist_, on these statistics, Mr. Hendriks observes:--

'It thus appears that whilst England coined 48-2/3 per
cent., or nearly one-half, of the grand total from 1792 to
1851, her proportion has fallen from the first place to the
last, in the subsequent period 1851 to 1866, her fresh
coinage having therein sunk to 21-1/2 per cent., or a
little more than one-fifth of the total. The proportion for
France was 33 per cent. in the first period, and 47 per
cent. in the second. From the second place she thus moved
to the first. But the advance of the United States was
equally marked, and from the smallest proportion, 18-1/3
per cent, in the period 1792 to 1851, there was an increase
to 31-1/2 per cent., or to the second place, in the period
1851 to 1866.

'The report from the Secretary of the American Treasury for
1868 gives more recent statistics, namely, for the years
ended 30th June, 1867 and 1868. These show a gold coinage
of about forty million dollars in 1867, and of about
twenty-four million dollars in 1868. But in England, in
1867, the gold coined was actually less than half a million
sterling, or under two and a half million dollars' worth in
American coin. And in 1868 the English Mint turned out only
£1,653,384 sterling, or about eight million dollars' worth
in American coin. The gold coinage of France has also
declined below the rate of fresh production in America.
Thus America is rapidly attaining the first place as a gold
coining country. And it will be a question for future time
to solve, whether the English and Australian Mints, in
their united working, will exceed the manufacture by the
United States' Mints at Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
Denver.'

As some persons may say, 'Other nations need a larger gold coinage than we do, because their paper money and banking systems are not like ours; but their coinage is no proof of the extent of their business transactions,' it is best to mention that the united export and import trade of the European countries alone, who have already joined the Monetary Convention, or have signed preliminary treaties of adherence thereto, amounts to no less than five hundred million pounds sterling per annum at the present time, or to nearly one-fourth more than the aggregate exports and imports of the United Kingdom. It will now be desirable to mention the charges made for coining, or seigniorage, at the principal mints. In England no charge is made; but the 1½d paid to the Bank on each ounce of standard gold bullion, amounts to about 0·1605 (say 3s. 2½d.) per cent. In France it is different. When gold is carried to the mint there, coin is returned for it, with a certain deduction. This deduction is about ¼ per cent. Beyond this there is some delay, practically, before the coin is returned. On an average the loss of interest on the money, caused by this delay, amounts to about ¾ per cent. Altogether, the charge is about 1 per cent., or more than six times the charge now made in England. In Prussia the charge is ½ per cent., and the delay is about the same as in Paris. In America and India it is about the same.[7]

It appears from these statements that there is nearly a universal consensus of practice in charging a seigniorage. There is also a nearly universal consensus of opinion on the part of the leading authorities in political economy (such as Adam Smith and J. S. Mill) that such a seigniorage, when moderate, really enhances the value of the coin to the extent of the charge. If, therefore, this opinion is correct, it follows that the gold coinage of England, where no charge is made, will be depreciated--that is, will not obtain its real value in those countries where a charge is made. It is not difficult to show that this is the case in France; and if in one country where a seigniorage is charged, it follows, of course, in all of them.

A British sovereign of full weight contains about equal intrinsic quantities of pure gold with twenty-five francs twenty centimes.

'But it does not follow that even a full-weight sovereign
is more valuable, either in a mathematical or in a
commercial sense, than twenty-five francs of gold coin,
when it is conveyed to a country within the operation of
the Monetary Convention of December, 1865. There the
sovereign ceases to be coin, and is nothing more than
bullion; and, as bullion, is subject to a seigniorage or
mint-charge, when converted into coin. And as, in the
countries in question, twenty-five francs twenty centimes
of bullion are, on the average, equal to only twenty-five
francs of coin, the sovereign is practically "valuable"
only as twenty-five francs.'--_Royal Commission on
International Coinage. Evidence of Mr. Hendriks_, p. 145.

The reason for this must be that the British coinage is gratuitous. A sovereign may be regarded from two points of view--as a certain weight of gold of a known fineness, manufactured into a uniform shape by the officials of the mint, and as the current coin of the realm. At present no charge is made for the process of manufacture. The question to be decided is this, Is the coin, _plus_ the process of manufacture, worth more than the same weight of gold before that process is performed? It appears that it is even worth less in France.

'The French Mint publishes a tariff giving a schedule of
the coinage of each country, the legal weight and fineness
in the country of its mintage, and a comparative estimate
of fineness, according to the French Mint tariff of
purchase, stating the value of each coin per kilogramme and
per single piece.'

If the intrinsic value of the pure gold contained in the sovereign is considered, it is equal to 25·2079 at par; but the Mint tariff giving the price of purchase makes it only 25·12 at par, a deduction of about nine centimes on each sovereign. In estimating it thus,

'The French Mint Commission and M. Durand, its
Commissioner-General, practically admit that current gold
coin in France is equal in exchange to its full legal
weight of bullion, _plus_ seigniorage. In order to test
this with mathematical exactness, we must observe that a
kilogramme, _i.e._, 1,000 grammes of absolutely pure gold
without deduction for seigniorage or mint charges, is worth
3444·4444 francs; or, _with_ deduction at the rate of 6
francs 70 centimes, on 3,100 francs, 9/10 fine, the 1,000
grammes of absolutely pure gold, 10/10 fine, are worth
3,437 francs. Then, at ·916 fine, _i.e._, at the French
Mint tariff of English gold coin treated as bullion, the
proportionate value of the kilogramme of sovereigns,
allowing for seigniorage or mint charge, comes out as given
in the tariff, 3148·29 francs. And thus, doubtless, the
French Mint arrives at its present equation of 25·12 francs
= 1 sovereign. For the proportion is, 1,000 _grammes_ :
3148·29 francs :: 7·98085 grammes : x = 25·12602
francs.'--_Royal Commission on International Coinage. Mr.
Hendriks' Evidence_, p. 146.

It appears by this that the pound sterling is practically undervalued 2d. in France; one penny about in the intrinsic worth of the gold; and another, the cost of coining the metal, including the loss for delay in so doing.

Any alteration in the standard of the coinage is, beyond doubt, a measure which should not be carelessly undertaken. Those opposed to such a measure have stated that the standard had remained unchanged in this country for more than a century and a half. Great weight has also been attributed by some persons to the resolution of the House of Commons of 20th October, 1696, and passed again in the same words on the 12th June, 1822, 'That this House will not alter the standard of the gold and silver coins of this kingdom, in fineness, weight, or denomination.' A solemn declaration beyond doubt; but notwithstanding this, several changes have at various times been made in the currency of the realm.

In 1696, the year of the 'Resolution' silver was the sole legal tender.

In 1717, silver ceased to be the sole standard, and the double, or alternative standard of gold or silver, was adopted. This change was made under the advice of Sir Isaac Newton.

In 1774, silver was restricted, as a legal tender, to sums under £25 by tale, and above £25 by weight, but gold remained a legal tender without restriction.

In 1783, both gold and silver, without any restriction, became legal tender.

In 1797, bank notes were made legal tender. The effect of this change is well known.

In 1798, silver was made legal tender as in 1774.

In 1817, gold alone was made legal tender, silver being debased and restricted as mentioned before.

In the face of these alterations it is impossible to appeal to history for a proof that it is not lawful to make any desirable change.

But some objectors say, If the British Mint no longer coins gratis, gold bullion will no longer make its way to this country as freely as it now does. At the present time England is the great bullion exchange of the world, because it is the country where the mint charges are lowest. Deprive this country of this advantage, and the stream of bullion will be directed elsewhere. If this argument is of any validity, of course all, or at least the greater part, of the bullion which has already reached this country, must have found its way to the Mint. But what is the real fact? That not so much as the ninth part of the gold bullion imported into this country within the last four years, has been coined into British money.

The following figures are taken from the Statistical Abstract for 1869:--

COMPUTED REAL VALUE OF THE REGISTERED IMPORTS
OF GOLD AND SILVER BULLION, AND SPECIE, INTO
THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Gold. Silver. Total.
1865 £14,485,570 £6,976,641 £21,462,211
1866 23,509,641 10,777,498 34,287,139
1867 15,800,159 8,020,888 23,821,047
1868 17,136,177 7,716,418 24,852,595
_____________
£104,422,992

AMOUNT OF GOLD AND SILVER MONEYS COINED AT THE
ROYAL MINT.
Gold. Silver. Total.

1865 £2,367,614 £501,732 £2,869,346
1866 5,076,676 493,416 5,570,092
1867 496,397 193,842 690,239
1868 1,653,384 301,356 1,954,740
___________
£11,084,417

Looking at these figures, it will scarcely be argued that the fact of gratuitous coinage at the Royal Mint is of any power in attracting gold bullion to this country.

The charges made on coining in other countries amount to large sums in the aggregate. It is desirable to show what these sums are.

It has been calculated that, upon each million pounds sterling worth of gold coin delivered, the charge (including adjustment for loss of interest in the fixed delays for delivery) amounts in all

England to £ 1,605
France 10,490
United States 15,000
Australia 13,330
India 13,330[8]

It is of itself a sufficient answer to those who think that the imposition of a seigniorage might prevent bullion from being brought to this country for coinage, to note what has taken place where such a charge is made. Both France and the United States have coined considerably more gold during the sixteen years mentioned above than this country. Yet the charge in the United States is nearly ten times that in Great Britain. The coinage at the Mint of Sydney has nearly doubled, yet the charge in Sydney is nearly as high as in the United States. The returns for the years 1867-1868 have not, as far as we are aware, yet reached this country. But considering the great and progressive increase in the Sydney coinages, it is highly probable that the coins struck in Australia during those years have greatly exceeded those minted in London.

To sum up:

It is at present open to this country to join the International Monetary Convention already in force between several of the principal European States.

It is probable that this Convention will shortly include the most important powers of the civilized world.

The population of the countries which have already given in their adherence to this Convention, greatly exceed in number the inhabitants of the British Islands. Their trade is more important in value than our own.

The disadvantages of being outside such a Convention are very great.

In joining it, a seigniorage would have to be charged on all British gold coinages.

A similar seigniorage is always charged on the coinages at the Sydney Mint; and the coinage at the Sydney Mint is now large and increasing--in the last two years probably more than that of the English Mint.

This seigniorage is no disadvantage to anyone. On the contrary, it possesses several advantages. At present, the last holder of a light sovereign is exposed to loss. This is unfair, as probably the last holder has done nothing to cause the coin to be light.

Were a seigniorage imposed, the first holder, the man who thinks he can gain something by causing the coin to be minted, would have--as is fair--to provide against the depreciation. Further, the first holder would have to pay for the work he has done; _i.e._, the manufacture of the coin--a charge now defrayed by the country.

It is clear that the absence of a seigniorage is not the cause which attracts gold to England, as barely the ninth part of the bullion imported finds its way to the Mint.

It is also clear that alterations, one at least of far more importance than the imposition of a seigniorage, have at former times been made in the status of the currency of the country.

To conclude, in the words of an early pioneer of British commerce, 'The exchanges practised in England, and principally in London, are confined within a narrow scantling, being but as a rivolet issuing out of the great streame of those exchanges that are used beyond the seas.'

Thus wrote 'that eminently deserving author,' Mr. Lewes Roberts, the 'delineator' of the Merchant's Mappe of Commerce in 1638. The 'true dimensions of our English traffique' even then excited his limited admiration and wonder. He could only imagine either that this commerce was 'at its full perfection, or that it aymes higher than can hitherto, by my weake sight, be either seen or discerned.' To us, 'the full streame' of that trade seems but 'a petty rivolet,' and we only wonder how, with the complicated and varying systems of money then in practice, with measures of length and quantity differing in almost every place of importance in Europe, any commerce could be kept up between differing nations. It is no longer needful to note now, as it was then, that different weights and measures were to be found in the principal cities even of the same country. It is no longer needful to bear in mind, as it was then, that there was a difference of exchange between places close to each other, and within the same territories. Commerce now would not bear such fetters. The vigour of the early days of trade surmounted those obstacles as the rush of a mountain stream drives it unhindered over rocks that vainly bar its course. In these times affairs approach what has been termed the stationary state. As the stream expands, the current becomes more gentle. As facilities for trade become greater, a smaller obstacle suffices to turn that trade from its course. It is now far more easy to give a vessel the option of discharging her cargo in one port or another, in one country or another, than it was then. Increased opportunities of intercourse render any change of the line of traffic far less difficult now than at any previous time. A smaller difference in profit renders such alterations of destination more desirable and more necessary. The course of commerce has just been compared to that of a stream--as dashing rapidly down the mountain glen, or slowly moving through the rich and level plain. Is it permissible to carry on the simile still further?--to watch how, as in Holland, a trifling artificially-produced change of level is sufficient to divert the scarcely perceptible flow of the almost stagnant flood--to add the waters of the Rhine to the Yssel, or of the Waal to the Lech? So as a general extension of wealth brings all countries more closely to one uniform condition, is it not needful to remove those obstacles which may cause similar diversions of our trade? Is it not needful to take a step onward, and to supply our own people with those advantages which are now possessed by many--will soon be possessed by almost all civilized nations? Among such advantages, to provide a coinage which, while entailing no expense on the country, either at its creation or for its maintenance, may be truly international in character, and aid the streams of our commerce to maintain their course around the globe.

ART. III.--(1.) _Diaries and Correspondence of James Harris, first Earl of Malmesbury._ Edited by his Grandson, the Third Earl. 4 vols. Second edition. London: 1845.

(2.) _Letters of the first Earl of Malmesbury, his Family, and Friends, from 1745 to 1820_. Edited, with Notes, &c., by his Grandson, the Right Hon. the EARL OF MALMESBURY, G.C.B. 2 vols. London: 1870.

From 1745 to 1820--this was the lifetime of James Harris, afterwards first Earl of Malmesbury; and such is the period over which the subject-matter of these two works extends. A more memorable period is not to be found in the annals of this country, or even in the long and more momentous history of Europe. It bridges the chasm which separates the old world of Europe from the new. It shows us that elder world in its last stage; it also shows us the beginning of that new and better order of things amongst which we now live. In the earlier period of those seventy-five years, we see the thrones of Louis the Fifteenth, of Frederick the Great, and Catherine of Russia, standing high above the heads of a crushed and miserable people, who counted for nothing either in their policy or in their pleasures. The simple facts of that old _régime_ of royal absolutism now read like a monstrous dream. Vice and despotism in the palace, license and intrigue at the Court, penury in the cottage, and degradation everywhere, such is hardly an exaggeration of the general condition of the Continent at that time, and simple truth as regards France, who then, as since, boasted her leadership of civilization. As is always the case in analogous periods, the people themselves had sunk into a moral torpor. There were no national movements or aspirations. Religion, freedom, and the thirst for military conquest, are the three great motive powers of humanity. But all of these were then dead or in abeyance. Humanity had settled on its lees. Even mental philosophy, which so often flourishes in such dead times of a nation's history, threw its teachings into the scale in favour of an ignoble life; and while a pitiless Scepticism robbed men of heaven and all their religious beliefs, Materialism bade them "eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow ye die" _for ever_, like the trees of the wood and the beasts of the fields. While Philosophy robbed man of his moral freedom and a future life, Royalty denied him his personal and political liberty and plundered his pockets. In truth, the whole upper crust of society had become heartless, debased, and corrupt, while beneath was a seething mass of suffering, ignorance, and savagery. And so the upper crust, with king, priests, and nobles--crowns, croziers, and coronets--gave way and fell into an abyss of devouring fire, like that which burst up of yore beneath Sodom and Gomorrah, devastating the corrupt Cities of the Plain. The old world of Europe was cast into the furnace, and all things became new--Providence overruling the wrath of man to its own wise and merciful ends.

All history is an ennobling study, alike in its events and its examples; but life is short, and it is the French Revolution that commences the period of history of deepest importance to the present age. Beyond that chasm, so rudely severing the old world of Europe from the new, lies the realm of the historian; on this side begins a drama of opinions and events constituting by far the most useful field of study in secular and political knowledge. Changed since then, and still changing, as are the territorial arrangements of Europe, the conquests of Napoleon contributed greatly to the rise of the principle of Nationality which is now the great power at work in the alteration of boundaries and the shaping of kingdoms. It is true, Napoleon meant to conquer only for himself and for France. He sought to found a vast empire, with vassal kingdoms under the rule of his brothers and relatives. But in establishing this empire, he swept away a great deal of the obstructive rubbish of the former time. By expelling the Germans from Italy, and also by creating a titular King of Rome, he paved the way for the subsequent aspirations and movement of the Italians in favour of nationality and independence, which have at length borne their full fruits in the establishment of a free and united Italy. In like manner, by sweeping away a whole host of petty princedoms in Germany, he simplified the subsequent course of events towards a unification of Germany; while the iron despotism which he exercised in that country first compelled all Germans to feel the tie of brotherhood, in the glorious uprising of the Fatherland in 1813 against the foreign foe. Poland, too, during the ascendancy of Napoleon, temporarily (but only for the great conqueror's own purposes) regained in part its old existence, thereby keeping alive the hope for renewed independence; a hope which, improbable as our expectations may seem, we think will yet be realized amid the great trouble, and changes impending over the Continent. But still more memorable, and worthy of thoughtful study, are the times of the French Revolution, from the influence which they have produced upon the current of political, social, and religious thought, in subsequent times. A whole flood of new ideas, principles, and opinions was then poured upon the world. Some of these were wise and good, others were detestable, but nearly all of them were given to the world in so crude a form and in so savage or ruthless a spirit, as to make them as a whole so repulsive that even yet some of their excellencies are but little known or acknowledged. Every one recognises, however, the vast influence which that grand and terrible Revolution has exercised upon the whole current of subsequent thought; and if Europe has yet to undergo one more great upheaving of democratic revolution (as we believe it has), we may rely upon it that some of the more extreme and, at present, all but forgotten dogmas of the first revolution will again appear on the scene; including, we regret to say, that terrible development of infidelity and materialism, against which even Robespierre himself, with his firm belief in the Supreme Being and a future life, was unable successfully to contend. That storm of blasphemy and utter scepticism, in its worst features at least, soon blew over--and let us trust that such will be the case again; but any one who has watched the turn of thought on the Continent, and in Germany even more than in France, must expect any new outburst of democratic revolution to be accompanied by a manifesto of infidelity and an attempt to banish religion from the fabric and principles of society, in a manner only too similar to that which formed the worst feature of the first French Revolution.

The first Earl of Malmesbury was in public life, for the greater part of the time holding the highest diplomatic appointments abroad, during the whole course of these momentous events. From a vantage-ground enjoyed by few men either of this or any other country, he beheld the Courts and peoples of Europe both before the deluge and after it; and although he withdrew from public office before the termination of the great war with France, he continued to the end to be confidentially consulted by the Ministers of the time. The first of the two works whose titles are prefixed is by far the most valuable and important. All the leading men of the day--monarchs, statesmen, and generals--figure constantly in the diaries and correspondence. The work has been quoted with advantage to history by some of our ablest writers, and not least so by Lord Stanhope, in his 'Life of Pitt.' It constitutes a mine of historical and political facts; and though published too late to be made use of by our chief historians of the French war and of the immediately preceding times of the Empress Catherine and Frederick the Great, its value is fully recognised by the writers of the personal and political memoirs which have recently issued from the press. The second of the works on our list is of a lighter character, in which the incidents of fashionable life mingle largely with matters of State and Parliamentary politics. The one work shows us the grand movements of the time, the other gives us the bye-play. The latter, to which we chiefly confine our remarks, is a selection from private letters received by three generations of the Harris family. They are confidential exchanges of intelligence and ideas, in which the hopes and fears, the expectations, disappointments, and impressions of our ancestors are given in the very words in which they were described. The noble editor of these letters calls them 'waifs of the past,' but they possess a twofold interest, firstly, as illustrating the opinions and social habits of that past time; and secondly, they are reliable indications of what public feeling was at their date with regard to politics, society, and the general condition of our own and foreign countries:--

'And how eventful those years were,' says the editor:
'They saw the Highland rebellion; the American war; the
despotic Courts of the Bourbons, of Catherine, and of
Frederick; the great French revolution, and its subsequent
phases of a bloody republic, an aggressive empire, an
ephemeral restoration, and again of a short empire and a
second restoration. They witnessed the struggles of our
English people for greater freedom, even from the
privileges claimed by their own House of Commons; and
lastly, a far fiercer contest to save their own country
from the subjugation under which for a time Napoleon held
every nation in Europe except theirs.'

The chief recipient of the earlier letters in this collection was Mr. James Harris, the father of the first Earl of Malmesbury. The Harris family had lived quietly on an estate in Wiltshire from the middle of the 16th century; and Mr. James Harris first broke through the hereditary sameness of existence by becoming one of the most distinguished scholars of his day. Besides 'Philosophical Treatises,' he published a work on grammar, called 'Hermes,' which the accomplished Bishop Lowth styled 'the most beautiful example of analysis produced since the days of Aristotle,' and which obtained so high a reputation that it was afterwards translated and published by command of the French Directory in 1796. He was member of Parliament for Christchurch, which seat he held till his death, in 1780; was made a Lord of the Treasury in 1763, and in 1744 he became Secretary and Comptroller of the Queen's Household. When he first took his seat in the House of Commons, John Townshend asked who he was, and on being told that he had written on grammar and harmony, replied 'Why does he come here, where he will hear neither?' His literary talent and high personal character procured for Mr. Harris a wide circle of friends and acquaintances among the leading men of the times; and owing to the influence he thus acquired he was enabled to launch his son, afterwards the first Lord, early into public life. The present Earl (who edits these letters), speaking of the '_fêtes_ and social intercourse in the venerable city of Sarum,' where his great-grandfather resided, observes regretfully 'how much less of cliques and class categories then existed among the nobility and their neighbours than in the present day.'

Mr. Harris was passionately fond of music and art, and wrote treatises upon them, which indicate a more lively and sympathetic nature than would he inferred from the dry philosophy of his other works. His wife moved much in society, and appears to have possessed a similar taste for the fine arts. The best artists of the day were visitors at their house in Salisbury. The family went frequently to the theatre, and in the letters we find critical observations on most of the new dramas of the time. There are two letters from David Garrick, asking permission to bring out at Drury Lane a musical pastoral, called 'Damo and Amyrillis,' which, the editor says, 'was in Mr. Harris's hands,' but which, there seems to us reason to believe, was actually composed by him. As might be expected of a musical family, they attended the concerts and the opera, and by-and-by we read of 'the great house in the Haymarket,' and Italian singers come to the front. Then, as now, the Opera was a perilous venture, and both the managers and singers occasionally came to grief. Of one of the favourite singers of the day we read as follows:--

'All Manzolini's clothes and finery are seized, and carried
to the Custom House, so he has sent a petition to the Lords
of the Treasury to have them redeemed. This event diverts
Lord North, as he says not one of the Treasury know a note
of music, nor care one farthing what becomes of Manzolini,
_except Mr. Harris_. He says your father has told so moving
a story to Mr. Grenville about it, that he thinks it may
affect him.'

A close friendship existed between Mr. Harris and Handel, who left him, by will, his portrait, and all his operas in manuscript. The very first letter in this collection has a touching allusion to the great musician, whose intellect had been affected by his labours, and who had become very eccentric. The Countess of Salisbury, a relative of Mr. Harris, writes to him thus (in 1745):--

'My constancy to poor Handel got the better of my indolence
and my propensity to stay at home, and I went last Friday
to see the 'Alexander's Feast;' but it was such a
melancholy pleasure as drew tears of sorrow, great though
unhappy Handel, dejected, wan, and dark, sitting by, not
playing on the harpsichord, and to think how his light has
been spent by being _overplied in music's cause_. I was
sorry, too, to find the audience so insipid and tasteless
(I may add unkind) as not to give the poor man the comfort
of applause; but affectation and conceit cannot discern or
attend to merit.'

In the next letter, the Rev. W. Harris writes to Mrs. Harris thus:--

'I met Mr. Handel a few days since in the street, and
stopped and put him in mind who I was; upon which, I am
sure it would have diverted you to have seen his antic
motions. He seemed highly pleased, and was full of inquiry
after you. I told him I was very confident that you
expected a visit from him this summer (at Salisbury). He
talked much of his precarious state of health, yet he looks
well enough.'

Handel recovered from the mental affection; and five years later (1750) we find the Earl of Shaftesbury writing of him as follows:--

'I have seen Handel several times since I came hither (to
London), and I think I never saw him so cool and well. He
is quite easy in his behaviour, and has been pleasing
himself in the purchase of several fine pictures,
particularly a large Rembrandt, which is indeed excellent.
We have scarce talked at all about musical subjects, though
enough to find that his performances will go off
incomparably.'

Music appears to have held a more prominent place in public amusements a century ago than is generally imagined; and when Giardini undertook the management of the Opera 'at the great house in the Haymarket' in 1764, Mrs. Harris opines that he will meet with no small difficulty, because the 'greatest part of the orchestra, and almost all the dancers, are engaged at the _play-houses_.' Giardini--a Piedmontese violinist and composer, who, after residing thirty years in England, went to Russia, where he died in 1793--came to grief in this operatic venture, and afterwards started an Opera in 'Mrs. Cornely's' rooms. Indeed, the Haymarket house, great as its celebrity became in the present century, was by no means a famous place in those times. In the same year (1764) we read in one of the letters, 'Almack is going to build some most magnificent rooms behind his house--one much larger than that at Carlisle House,' _i.e._, Mrs. Cornely's. This latter was the favourite place of resort at that time, and for many years afterwards. It was a place where subscription-concerts were held (one series mentioned in 1764, consisted of twenty-one concerts, of Bach's music, Cocchi's, and Abel's, for five guineas), where the Opera for some time had its seat; and also where masquerade parties and other fashionable entertainments were held. In 1770, we read of 'fifteen or sixteen young men of fashion and fortune giving a masquerade at Cornely's, to 800 people;' and in the following year we have a full account of a masquerade given at the same place by 'the gentlemen of the Tuesday Nights' Club.' Mrs. Harris, writing to her son (the future Earl) at Madrid, says: 'Mr. Charles Fox has offered to supply us with tickets. Your sisters and I mean to go; 'tis the only masquerade I wish them to go to. I shall try my utmost to persuade Mr. Harris (her husband) to accompany us. One difficulty is in the way; that is, no gentlemen are admitted in dominos.' Mr. Harris could not be persuaded to join the fashionable assembly, but Mr. Fox--who had just commenced his official career, as a Lord of the Admiralty--was, at that time, more at home in such parties than in Parliament. Mrs. Harris was greatly delighted with it. The following is part of her account of it:--

'Gertrude (Miss Harris) was dressed as the Pythian, that
is, priestess to the temple of Apollo, a dress which she
wore in one of the private plays. Louisa was an Indian
Princess; Mr. Cambridge borrowed a dress for her which was
pretty and fine--the habit, muslin with green and gold
sprigs, with a turban and veil. I never saw anybody enter
so strongly into the spirit of a masquerade as she did. She
talked to numbers all in French, and had disguised her
voice so well that even some of her friends did not
discover her. Towards the end, she said she was frightened
by the Devil speaking to her sister. Mine was a white
domino, with a Mary Queen of Scots cap and ruff.

'Lord Edgecombe was a shepherdess, with a little lamb under
his arm, and a most excellent figure he was. Mr. Banbury
was a most excellent _friseur_; Lord Berkeley, a charlatan.
Mrs. Crewe[9] looked beautiful as a nun with a yellow veil.
Several gentlemen in women's clothes, not as old women....

'On the whole we are greatly entertained, for it was the
first masked ball I ever saw. We supped soon after one; and
then everybody unmasked, and a number of acquaintances we
found, though we had found out many before. We got home
soon after five; and, old as I may be, I never left a
public place with more regret.'

Mrs. Cornely's rooms soon became the object of a jealous, and let us hope unfounded, attack. Giardini had opened an Opera there, which was 'greatly injuring that of Mr. Hobart's in the Haymarket;' and the latter gentleman 'informed against them' as an unlicensed house. There was a strong party on either side, 'harmoniacs' and 'anti-harmoniacs,' and the latter party brought forward scandalous charges. Only a week after the above-mentioned masquerade, Mrs. Harris writes thus:--

'The Harmoniac is over, and, what is worse, they threaten
hard to indict Mrs. Cornely's as a house of ill-fame, and
say that forty beds are made and unmade every day, which is
hard, for a friend of ours says it is never more than
_twenty_. But, joking apart, if they choose to demolish
Mrs. Cornely, all elegance and spectacle will end in this
town; for she never yet had her equal in these things, and
I believe got but little, as all she undertakes is clever
to a degree.'

There is a wonderful want of logical sequence in these few lines; and as to whether the scandalous charge was true or false, Mrs. Harris apparently was as little in a position to judge as we are now. Mrs. Cornely was originally Mademoiselle Pompeiati, a singer. She hired Carlisle House, in Soho-square, and established balls and assemblies by subscription. This place of fashionable resort, however, as well as its mistress, quickly thereafter declined in reputation. In 1774, we find Mrs. Harris writing:--'I went to Carlysle House, which Bach has taken for his concerts; the furniture, like Mrs. Cornely, is much on the decline; but, in my opinion, the place is better for the concert than Almack's.' Bach soon left these rooms, and opened a place of his own, splendidly fitted up. But even he was not allowed to carry on his performances without opposition, although of a different kind from that which proved fatal to Mrs. Cornely. 'Lord Hillsborough, Sir James Porter, and some others (writes Mrs. Harris) have entered into a subscription to prosecute Bach for a nuisance, and I was told the jury had found a bill against him. One would scarce imagine his house could molest either of these men, for Bach's is at the corner of Hanover-street.'

Amateur theatrical performances were in those days in great vogue among the upper classes, and usually took place in the country residences of the nobility and gentry in the winter months--during the Parliamentary recess, when even members of the Ministry (notably Mr. Fox) took part in them. Winterslow House was the famous place for these amateur performances. The ordinary audience consisted of the servants of the house and the neighbouring townspeople, as well as a select circle of visitors, which on one occasion included the Duke and Duchess of Queensberry, the Duchess of Bedford, Lord and Lady Pembroke, Lady Charles and Lord Robert Spencer, Lord Dunkellin, Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick, &c. At the close of one of those performances at Winterslow House (in January, 1774), in which Mr. Fox and another member of his family acted, a lamentable accident occurred, which destroyed the greater part of the mansion. Mrs. Harris writes of it next day as follows:--

'We got home in whole bones [an allusion apparently to the
bad roads] soon after one, and in high spirits; but our joy
is now turned to sorrow, for this morning, at five, a fire
broke out in the new building at Winterslow House, and
entirely consumed that and also the old house, except the
kitchen and laundry. Though the house was full of company,
fortunately no life was lost. The fire was discovered by
some Salisbury chairmen, who, for want of a bed, were
deposited on a carpet under the great stairs; they alarmed
the house, and probably, thereby, saved some lives. Lady
Pembroke, Lady Mary Fox and her children, were carried to
King's House; Miss Herbert, Mrs. Hodges, and the other
ladies stayed in the laundry; all the gentlemen stood by.
As they had no engines, and little or no water but violent
rain, they in a manner gave up all hopes of the house; but
their object was to save the furniture, in which they have
succeeded, though 'tis greatly damaged by dirt and rain.
'Tis thought, but not certain, that the fire was owing to
some timber near a chimney in the new building. I think of
the contrast: we left that house this morning between
twelve and one, all mirth and jollity, and by seven it was
consumed; it really hurts me when I think how many
agreeable days I have spent in those rooms.

'Some say that, during the flames, Stephen and Charles Fox
and Fitzpatrick got to a proper distance, and laid bets as
to which beam would fall in first. The friends of the
house, who resort to Almack's and White's, say they are
sorry they were not at Winterslow that night, as "they
might have had an opportunity of seeing the family in a
_new light_. I could mention profane things uttered at the
very time, but they are too bad."

Amateur dramatic and operatic performances were a frequent amusement at Mr. Harris's house in Salisbury. Miss Gertrude, the elder daughter, was an adept in such performances, and, moreover, retained this taste throughout the whole of her long life. This lady afterwards became the wife of Mr. Robinson, younger son of Lord Grantham. She lived, in the London world, to the age of eighty-five, preserving to the last her faculties and cheerful character. She used to give private theatricals at her house, in which Lord de Grey, Mr. F. Robinson, Hugh Elliott, and Canning were the chief actors--Canning writing the prologues and epilogues, which are still extant. In the letters we find frequent allusions to the performances in Mr. Harris's family residence; but we shall content ourselves with mentioning one of them, which aroused the satirical ire of some provincial Juvenal, whose poetic outburst serves to show the great, indeed too great, change between the notions on such subjects then and now. Mrs. Harris, in a letter to her son, thus alludes to a rehearsal of the piece, which a few days afterwards was performed, as usual, to an audience of the townsfolk and the visitors at the house:--

'I have but little to send from hence; we are so totally
taken up with our own theatrical business that nothing else
is thought of. The ladies acted last night in their dresses
to all their servants, and a most crowded house they had.
Although I was not admitted to the performance, I saw all
the ladies. Their dresses are fine and elegant. Miss
Townshend makes an excellent Spanish ambassador, a fine
figure and richly dressed; she had a prodigious long sword,
and not being accustomed to wear one, she contrived, as she
walked, to run it up through a scene, and damaged it
greatly. Louisa has taken a sword you left her [here?], and
manages it right well. She is very fine in a purple Spanish
dress, all the buttons Irish diamonds, a handsome button
and loop to her hat, and your King of Spain's picture
hanging from her neck. The Queen, Miss Hussey, was dressed
in blue and silver, with a number of diamonds; Miss
Wyndham, who is Elvira, in white, trimmed with pearls;
Gertrude, the Princess, in a black Spanish dress, trimmed
with red and silver, and a great quantity of diamonds; it
becomes her much.

'Lord Pembroke [the tenth Earl] sent a note to your father,
which was as follows:--"I can snuff candles, I can scrape
on the violoncello; if either of these sciences will
entitle me to a place in your theatre, I will perform
gratis. P.S. My wife says she can thrum the harpsichord or
viol-de-gamba."

'We have sent them and the Amesbury House tickets for
Saturday. Everybody is making interest to get in. The
ladies mean to perform five times, so I hope everybody will
see it.'

The satirical verses which this lady performance called forth appeared in the _Bath Journal_ (Nov. 17, 1774), entitled 'On the Ladies at the Close of Salisbury, now acting _Elvira_;' and Mrs. Harris opines that 'they were sent from some _vinegar_ merchant in Salisbury who could not get admitted to the performance. The verses are as follows:--