« AnteriorContinuar »
is disposed to take that common-sense view of the question. Though, to be sure, your lordship's resolution to go into the army was very sudden, and a little strange, certainly, and then to lead forlorn hopes—dear me, Lord Arthur, a man of your quality !—when there were so many common fellows in the army would have been glad of the price of duty; for I am told, that one evil attending this war has been the rise of a great many low, vulgar men in the army-now, my Lord, if I were commander-in-chief, I would let none of those low-born men—by which I mean, those who are not related by blood to the peerage, -rise higher than the rank of captain, or even lieutenant, as was the
the French army, before that vile revolution : but there's no accounting for tastes, as I have always said, when my girls have mentioned the circumstance; and, indeed, when they heard of it, they were terribly alarmed about your lordship, for I assure your lordship you were always a vast favourite with them. Georgiana, my dear, were you not alarmedterribly alarmed—to hear of his lordship’s exposing himself to such frightful dangers? Let me re-introduce Georgiana to your lordship. Georgiana, my dear, come forward—the sweet girl is so timid, my Lord.” I made a low bow to the Duchess and her daughter, the sweet girl who was ‘so timid,' and hastened off, saying, that I saw the Prince wished to say something
Disgusting hag! cold, heartless, cruel, , selfish, remorseless beldame!* The congenial fiends of thy kindred hell are already waiting to clutch thee. Wretch! wouldst drive me once more to madness! O devil-how my brain throbs and burns! Let me cool it at this open window
Note by the Editor-I cannot help thinking bis lordship somewhat too severe upon my Lady Duchess of Tremouille. In the present state of morality in England, is there one mother in a hundred who would have acted differently? However, that does not justify such morality : it only shows what sort of a standard it is by which the present race of English mothers measure their morality.
The truth is, if I had had greater temptations to marry placed before me, than any I encountered at house, I should have had little difficulty in resisting them. I had seen just enough of the class of society to which the accident of my birth had made me belong, to conceive an utter repugnance to contracting a marriage in it. I was no admirer of any part of the doctrine of a community of goods, and, perhaps, least of all, of that part of it which advocates a community of wives. And here our aristocracy appear to me to commit a logical error, for while they profess an utter abhorrence of the above (revolutionary, as they term it) doctrine, they put in practice that part of it which regards a community of women. However, perhaps they merely
Compound for sins they are inclined to
By damning those they have no mind to. Some philosophers will, no doubt, sneer at my prejudice on this head. But I cannot help it; I own it is a weakness; but one which I never could get the better of. And what is rather singular, and indeed worthy of remark, the existence of the principle of monopoly is not confined to the case where one woman is the subject of the monopoly. But I can say, from my own personal observation and experience, that in those countries where it is the custom to have a harem—to have any number of women or wives—there is felt in some minds just as much repugnance to let any one of the number become common property as where the number is only one.
There was a striking exemplification of the truth of some of the above remarks with reference to marriage afforded even in the pre