A Residence in France | Page 5

the way, are not frequent; but, on
this occasion, he told me to remain, and I passed nearly two hours with
him.
We chatted a good deal of the state of society under the old regime.
Curious to know his opinions of their private characters, I asked a good
many questions concerning the royal family. Louis XVI. he described
as a-well-meaning man, addicted a little too much to the pleasures of
the table, but who would have done well enough had he not been
surrounded by bad advisers. I was greatly surprised by one of his
remarks. "Louis XVI," observed Lafayette, "owed his death as much to
the bad advice of Gouverneur Morris, as to any one other thing." You
may be certain I did not let this opinion go unquestioned; for, on all
other occasions, in speaking of Mr. Morris, his language had been kind
and even grateful. He explained himself, by adding, that Mr. Morris,
coming from a country like America, was listened to with great respect,
and that on all occasions he gave his opinions against democracy,
advising resistance, when resistance was not only too late but
dangerous. He did not call in question the motives of Mr. Morris, to
which he did full justice, but merely affirmed that he was a bad adviser.
He gave me to understand that the representatives of America had not

always been faithful to the popular principle, and even went into details
that it would be improper for me to repeat. I have mentioned this
opinion of Mr. Morris, because his aristocratical sentiments were no
secret, because they were mingled with no expressions of personal
severity, and because I have heard them from other quarters. He
pronounced a strong eulogium on the conduct of Mr. Crawford, which
he said was uniformly such as became an American minister.
There is nothing, however, novel in these instances, of our
representatives proving untrue to the prominent feeling of the country,
on the subject of popular rights. It is the subject of very frequent
comment in Europe, and sometimes of complaint on the part of those
who are struggling for what they conceive to be their just privileges;
many of them having told me, personally, that our agents frequently
stand materially in their way.
Louis XVIII, Lafayette pronounced to be the falsest man he had ever
met with; to use his own expression, "_l'homme le plus faux_." He
gave him credit for a great deal of talent, but added that his duplicity
was innate, and not the result of his position, for it was known to his
young associates, in early youth, and that they used to say among
themselves, as young men, and in their ordinary gaieties, that it would
be unsafe to confide in the Comte de Provence.
Of Charles X he spoke kindly, giving him exactly a different character.
He thought him the most honest of the three brothers, though quite
unequal to the crisis in which he had been called to reign. He believed
him sincere in his religious professions, and thought the charge of his
being a professed Jesuit by no means improbable.
Marie Antoinette he thought an injured woman. On the subject of her
reputed gallantries he spoke cautiously, premising that, as an American,
I ought to make many allowances for a state of society, that was
altogether unknown in our country. Treating this matter with the
discrimination of a man of the world, and the delicacy of a gentleman,
he added that he entirely exonerated her from all of the coarse charges
that had proceeded from vulgar clamour, while he admitted that she had
betrayed a partiality for a young Swede[1] that was, at least, indiscreet

for one in her situation, though he had no reason to believe her
attachment had led her to the length of criminality.
[Footnote 1: A Count Koningsmarke.]
I asked his opinion concerning the legitimacy of the Duc de Bordeaux,
but he treated the rumour to the contrary, as one of those miserable
devices to which men resort to effect the ends of party, and as
altogether unworthy of serious attention.
I was amused with the simplicity with which he spoke of his own
efforts to produce a change of government, during the last reign. On
this subject he had been equally frank even before the recent revolution,
though there would have been a manifest impropriety in my repeating
what had then passed between us. This objection is now removed in
part, and I may recount one of his anecdotes, though I can never impart
to it the cool and quiet humour with which it was related. We were
speaking of the attempt of 1822, or the plot which existed in the army.
In reply to a question of mine, he said--"Well, I was to