I71 
could not meet, and he presumed to rebuke as before, the result, 
a quarrel, and now a demand from the damsel for the return of 
her letters. Thus again showing clearly that as between them- 
selves there was no idea of a marriage. This last position has 
some local interest as in the Bath Chronicle, 15th April, 1773,* 
is given a correspondence purporting to be between the young lady 
and a noble lord. His letter reads :— 
“Adorable Creature, 
Permit me to assure you in the most tender and 
affectionate manner that the united force of your charms and 
qualifications have made so complete a prisoner of my art (szc) that 
I despair of its being set at liberty but through your means. 
Under this situation I have it ever to lament that the laws will 
not permit me to offer you my hand. Here I cannot assist ny 
fate; but what I can dispose of, my heart and my fortune are 
entirely at your devotion, thinking myself the happiest of mankind 
should either be acceptable. 
Lady A—— who will deliver this and who obligingly vouchsafes 
to be my mediator, will, I flatter myself, urge the sincerity of my 
heart on this occasion so as to obtain a permission for me to throw 
myself at your feet to-morrow evening. In momentary expectation 
of which 
I am your devoted admirer, 
Wednesday evening, 4 o’clock. G 
” 
R. 
The G———+r here is given as Grosvenor. Miss Linley’s. 
letter replies :-— 
“My Lord, 
Lest my silence should bear the most distant interpreta- 
tion of listening to your proposals, I condescend to answer your 
infamous letter. 
You lament the laws will not permit you to offer me your hand, 
I lament it too my lord, but on a different principle—to convince 
your dissipated heart that I have a soul capable of refusing a 
coronet when the owner is not the object of my affections—depising 
it when the offer of an unworthy possessor. 
Fob. ai col. 3 
