'I have read Georgel and must say I have seldom read a more stupid book. The first volume in which he relates what he had seen and observed himself is well enough, but the last three volumes are no more than a mere newspaper collection of the proceedings of the Convention, trite lamentations on the wickedness of the revolution, and common parsonic notions of the rights of kings. Does the book strike you in any other point of view? Such as it is, I shall write a review of it, and I should be obliged to you, to tell me if you think my opinion just. Is his explanation of the Story of the Necklace to be credited? Could a man of the Cardinal's rank, who had filled the situation of Ambassador at the Court of Vienna, be the dupe of such a woman as Madame La Motte. Or was he the rogue? or was he the dupe? and La Motte the agent of the Queen? If this is not the true version, where is the true version to be found? Is there any new information respecting the French Revolution in Georgel? there seems none such to me'.