Landor.—­Why not?  Look at my Dialogue with De Lille. [74] What have I said of Louis the Fourteenth, the great exemplar of kingship, and of the treatment that he ought to have received from the English?  Deprived of all he had acquired by his treachery and violence, unless the nation that brought him upon his knees had permitted two traitors, Harley and St. John, to second the views of a weak woman, and to obstruct those of policy and of England, he had been carted to condign punishment in the Place de Greve or at Tyburn. Such examples are much wanted, and, as they can rarely be given, should never be omitted.[75]

[Footnote 74:  Vol. i.]

[Footnote 75:  Vol. i. p. 281.—­Landor.]

North.—­The Sans-culottes and Poissardes of the last French revolution but three, would have raised you by acclamation to the dignity of Decollator of the royal family of France for that brave sentiment.  But you were not at Paris, I suppose, during the reign of the guillotine, Mr. Landor?

Landor.—­I was not, Mr. North.  But as to the king whose plethory was cured by that sharp remedy, he, Louis the Sixteenth, was only dragged to a fate which, if he had not experienced it, he would be acknowledged to have deserved. [76]

[Footnote 76:  Vol. ii. p. 267.  This truculent sentiment the Dialogist imputes to a Spanish liberal.  He cannot fairly complain that it is here restored to its owner.  It is exactly in accordance with the sentence quoted above in italics—­a judgment pronounced by Mr. Landor in person.  —­Vol. i. p. 281.  It also conforms to his philosophy of regicide, as expounded in various parts of his writings.  In his preface to the first volume of his Imaginary Conversations, he claims exemption, though somewhat sarcastically, from responsibility for the notions expressed by his interlocutors.  An author, in a style which has all the freedom of the dramatic form, without its restraints, should especially abstain from making his work the vehicle of crotchets, prejudices, and passions peculiar to himself, or unworthy of the characters speaking.  “This form of composition,” Mr. Landor says, “among other advantages, is recommended by the protection it gives from the hostility all novelty (unless it be vicious) excites.”  Prudent consideration, but indiscreet parenthesis.]

North.—­I believe one Englishman, a martyr to liberty, has said something like that before.

Landor.—­Who, pray?

North.—­The butcher Ings.

Landor.—­Ah, I was not aware of it!  Ings was a fine fellow.

North.—­Your republic will never do here, Mr. Landor.

Landor.—­I shall believe that a king is better than a republic when I find that a single tooth in a head is better than a set. [77]

[Footnote 77:  Vol. ii. p. 31.]

North.—­It would be as good logic in a monarchy-man to say, “I shall believe that a republic is better than a king when I am convinced that six noses on a face would be better than one.”