and manners, was still too much of a patriot to allow any disrespect to the republic which he represented; but his intelligence was too broad not to distinguish between what was pure and simple ignorance of our affairs and what was intended for impertinence. His fine lips would curl a little, perhaps, at any mistake too palpable; but he was, like our minister, Charles Francis Adams, able to keep his indignation in check.
London society was far more exclusive then than it is now; it was smaller, and the age had not "ripened like a plum." I was also struck by the reserve of certain coteries: they kept back the intellectual treasures of their minds; they even regarded a quick wit and a lively tongue as a little fatiguing. Wit was a gymnast whom they distrusted, reminding one of Marie Antoinette's remark about Moliere:
"Ce Moliere est de mauvais goût," said the queen.
"Vous vous trompez, madame," said the king; "on peut reprocher à Moliere d'être quelquefois de mauvais ton, mais il n'est jamais de mauvais goût."
Lord Houghton did not think it bad manners or bad taste to be witty but many of his countrymen differed with him and said as much. Again, I think the English are very fond of being entertained, and that they regard the French and the American people as destined by Heaven to amuse them. Between the two there are always those cosmopolitan English who understand both and interpret both. Such men as Mr. Motley, Mr. Lowell, Mr. Henry James, on our side; such men as Lord Houghton, Sir Stafford Northcote, Earl de Grey, Tom Hughes, and Kingsley, on their side, were capable of understanding both. I think Dean Stanley, kind and lovely though he was, never understood or thoroughly liked Americans; we were strange beasts to him. I had
