Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

was such as to require the employment of the yal chief, in which opinion they will, I beeve, be joined by most men of sense. It apears to be quite an easy job to beat the French Spain. CORIOLANUS should be reserved for esperate enterprizes and a time of peril. -But, why did this at once soft-brained nd malignant writer return, just as he Es coming to a close, to the subject

the Duke's military character? Why ould he not let that sleep?" His royal highness," says he, "would doubtless deem it an indirect injustice to himself, to enter into any vindication of his professional capacity. Nor will the friends of his royal highness so dignify the tribe of libellers, as to join issue with them upon a point of this kind. His military character will neither depend upon their conviction, nor be injured by their decision."―――Indeed? Why, then, did cu, at the outset of your miserable pamthlet, spend so much time upon this vindiation? You there, in your way, endeaoured to convince us, by reasoning, that the Juke of York was a competent general; and now you tell us, that to endeavour to roduce such conviction would be an inastice to the Duke. Such are the inconBencies, into which men fall, when they write without principle. In conclusion, his wretched writer tells us to appeal to the rmy for the character of the Duke. The my! The army! What! to the whiskerdor the shaved part of the army? To the men with long tails or the men with no tails? To the men in muffs and tippets or to those n high-crowned caps? To the army! Are on not ashamed, insolent as you are, to id us make such an appeal. No: we are und by no rule of this sort. We are not be told to judge of any commander from hat those under his command will say of im; but, from his deeds, wherein we now him full as well as they can. Oh, itiff, you deserve to be skinned for what ou have said upon this part of your subect. To tell us, that the Duke's "best reward is the love of the army!" Why, hat is the army itself, but a body, whose unduct is a proper subject of criticism with he public? The army may be most cometent to judge of the character of comissaries or barrack-masters; but of these who command in battles, the public can dge as well, or better, than the army.

must not conclude this article without acticing one very material circumstance. now perceive, at a moment when I have ot time to go through a comparison of the Shole, that I have been copying from

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

king's family and household. From whom "else, indeed, should a family council-a "domestic cabinet-be composed, but of "the members of the family of those who "must necessarily have a community of "interest, and sympathy in feeling? The "heir apparent alone, jor very obvious reaSONS, is seldom a member of this closet "council; all the other princes are almost

[ocr errors]

necessarily in the immediate confidence of "their sovereign and father. Let it not, "therefore, be objected to the Duke of York, "that he has followed the course of things, "and, with the QUEEN, is at the head of "the" KING'S FRIENDS."- - All the words here distinguished by Italic characters are left out in the second edition. This was found to be a little too much. It was found (by the writer, I mean, of course), that, to make our gracious Queen a politician, and one too of a junto, or cabal, to work even against the ministry selected by the king, would not do. This part, therefore, was, in the second edition, expunged.The Morning Chronicle asserts, that this pamphlet "has evidently been written un"der the eye, and published with the sanc"tion of the Duke of York! Nay," auds the Chronicle, 66 we conceive, that it must have had the concurrence of the highest

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

authority in the kingdom,"And, ile it is saying this, observe, this paper protests solemnly against ever having libelled the Duke of York.-I, on the contrary, lock upon this pamphlet as coming from the very lowest and dirtiest source in the kingdom. Aye, the very dirtiest of all possible sources. What! attribute to the Duke of York and the King (Lord preserve us!) a pamphlet, which describes the whole of the royal family, together with others unknown, as being embodied in a sort of permanent conspiracy against the very ministers, whom the king selects to manage the affairs of the nation, through whom he acts, and the responsibility of whom is, we are told, the great security for our property and our lives! Attribute this pamphlet to the dictation of the Duke of York and the approbation of the king, and yet to resent the accusation of being a li beller! Verily the Morning Chronicle surpasses in assurance even the writer of this pamphlet, of which I shall now take my

leave, feeling no small degree of satisfaction | at having had this opportunity of proving, by deed as well as word, the falsehood of the charge, preferred against me by this writer, of entertaining dislike towards the royal Commander in Chief.

Botley, 1st Sept. 1908.

SPAIN. DUKE OF YORK.

ration-who would refuse to assist then dashing to the earth the chains which murky Cyclops of France are now for for them, until they shall passively b thrust forth their wrists to the gripe of iron which has hitherto entered so de into their soul," a cleaving curse be "man's inheritance to all generations! But, in the midst of all this exultation heard the whisper of apprehension alarm. The last stake for the deliveranc Europe is now about to be played: Brita about to shed the blood of some of the b est of her sons in the contest; and is pou out with zealous prodigality the fruits her industry into the military chests of patriots: and yet, in the moment of mal all these sacrifices, the public, it seems not by any means fully and finally appr of the individuals who are to be entru with the awful responsibility of comm In this interval of irritable and sensitive a

Sir; The enormous magnitude of the preparations which are now making by ministers for the assistance of the cause of patriotism in Spain, and the monstrous sums which the country must inevitably be called upon to sacrifice in order to render that as sistance effectual, are contemplated by the people of these kingdoms with a painful mixture of exultation and alarm. They are viewed with the feelings of the most triumphant satisfaction by all the sound-hearted part of the community, because they regard them as demonstrative of the mature state of revolutionary feeling in that country; under the confidence that those to whom our resources are entrusted would not waste them on a cause which they had not good reason to believe was properly understood, and unanimously adopted by the whole Spanish population. By the revolutionary feeling, I inean to describe that state of public sentiment, which is awakened to a concvition of the necessity of great and salutary chan-pected to leave our coasts-The prej ges in the fabric of the constitution, and to an abhorrence both of the searching and iron despotism of Napoleon, and of the filthy, corrupt, and stagnating influence of the superannuated dynasty of the Bourbons: a feeling, in short, which prompts an enslaved people to exclaim with one voice, in the language of Alcibiades to the profligate senate of his country:

"Till now you have gone on, and filled the time
"With all licentious measure; making your wills
"The scope of justice: till now myself, and such
"As slept within the shadow of your power,
"Have wandered with our travers'd arms, and
"breath'd

[blocks in formation]

iety, when probably the deliverance of Sp is a theme which warms the heart of humblest labourer or mechanic over his the ear of the nation is still abused and turbed by certain rumours, intimating, an illustrious and royal duke has not s "rendered to the prejudices of the prop but had pertinaciously insisted on the c mand in one of the expeditions that is

[ocr errors]

ces of the people !! Why, surely, that illustrious personage must have b most scandalously libelled by those who h attributed to him either language or se ments so insulting to the best feelings of loyal and generous nation. Our prejua all lie in precisely an opposite direction. claim of royalty to all great and amiable q lities is with us immediately allowed-*

*

*

*

* * *

* * *

*

*-While, however, I hum venture to state my objections to the appo ment of the illustrious duke to any fore command, my prejudices do not blind me the merits to which he is justly entiti The late enlightened General Order, whi has issued by his command, for cashieri the Queues of all the privates and non-co missioned officers of his majesty's fore and the addition of a Sponge to their pointments, for the purpose of keepi their heads clean, claims a very large port of the public gratitude! Whatever sha in the deliverance of Spain (should it ta

ce) is to be attributed to this masterly dhudable measure, must unquestionably due to the sagacity and judgment of the strious personage. Still, however, I ald beg leave to suggest a doubt as to the dence of recommending our patriotic es to imitate our example of enlightened I convenient reform, by dismissing their stachios; since it might possibly be proitive of some aukward consequences, by erfering with their national prejudices. lam, Sir, &c.-A. B.- London, g.0, 1808.

er

o SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS, KNIGHT. DEAR SIR RICHARD; -After carefully lating the different reports, in the newsers, of the trial, CARR versus HOOD, I from my own recollection, I do not mate to say, that your assertion respecting gubling of that report is not true.--The ard non-ense you advance, about Rews, hardly deserves notice. That your ford Review, your Public Characters, r Travels in Spain, and all your other blications, are manufactured in the way represent, no one who knows Sir Richard kips, or is acquainted with his tricks, doubt.-All the world knows that the , the Statesman, and other newspapers, erted a " Life of Sir Richard Phillips," RITTEN BY HIMSELF, and were ID for so doing. But, for such a man you, to take credit to yourself for " posing a craft," of whom you and the sbys and the Cundees and the Murrays the Hoggs, and the other manufacturers publications are in hourly dread, is the plus ultra of assurance. As I do not an to take up much time in convicting good Sir Richard, pray answer me following questions, and I will inform and Mr. Cobbett's readers, whether or not You waste your time in reading Reviews." Did you not threaten to withdraw your ployment from GILLET, the printer, be se he printed the number of the Critical view, in which PRATT'S HARVEST HOME at up? Did you not send your man, ckiebridge, to the publishers of the inburgh Review, to solicit the perusal of te number, as you understood they had eived some by coach? Does not GILLET some other printer to print those sheets the Satirist, which interfere with your erests? Did you not dispatch your broer-in law, SURR, when you returned na city feast, on June the 30th, at 11 ock at night, to warn the wholesale bookiers, not to sell that month's Satirist? d you not, at a considerable expense to

yourself, get your attorney to send Circular Letters to the poor, innocent, booksellers of Margate, Ramsgate, Brighton, and fifty other places, threatening them with the utmost severity of the law, if they dared to vend the said publication? Upon your oath, could you say that you neither purchase nor borrow the Reviews monthly, from Symonds, or any other bookseller? For what reason did George Woodfall send you, in a way that I will not describe, out of his printing office-In waiting for answers to these questions, I have the honour to be, dear Sit Richard, your obedient humble servantECHо.-London, August 11, 1808.

MR. BEWLEY'S LETTER TO SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS.

MR. COBBETT ;-As a sincere admirer of every thing, which, in these times of foppery and ostentation, wears the semblance of modest demeanor, I beg to be permitted, through the channel of your widely circulated Register, to pay a tribute of undissembled homage to your new correspondent SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS, and to sympathize with the votaries of genius and learning in regretting the harsh and unhandsome treatment with which he has been assailed from the rude dialectic weapons of the law. With regard to the late Trial which has excited such universal attention, the World of Letters has been held in admitation both of the disinterestedness and the prudence of SIR JOHN CARR, who gave it birth, and of SIR RICHARD'S dexterity, who embraced, upon this occasion, the opportunity of enlightening us with his opinions of Literature and Criticism. These opinions are now gone forth, and will stand for ever, like axioms in the Matheinatics, clear and indisputable. They will at once regulate and fix the taste of the timid scholar who distrusts his own judgment, and happy will that controversialist be who can render his polemical warfare successful, and give a death-blow to the arguments of his antagonist, by citing the oracular and unerring judgment of the learned Knight in support of his own decisions. Strange, indeed, it is, Sir, that the public, in an age like this, which has ironically been termed civilized and accomplished, should have been so blind and bigotted as never to have descried the varied crudition, the exquisite taste, and acute wit of that immaculate production, the Oxford Review; until, alas! the monarch of literature, Sir Richard, whom God long preserve! conferred disgrace and derision on us all, by pointing to its untimely death-bed. Let the guardian, however, of this interest

[ocr errors]

ing élève take courage and be comforted Milton lived in ungrateful times, and many years rolled away before the merits of Paradise Lost were known or acknowledged'; and, even in our own days, Chatterton too impatiently bore the churlish fang of necessity, and crushed the germs of his mighty genius before they had blossomed into maturity. Even so, Sir Richard The Oxford Review, which emanated from his genius, has been strangled in its infancy-the oracle of wisdom and of science is dumb, and well has the learned Knight revenged himself upon the World of Letters for its cold neglect, by relinquishing it to utter and hopeless ignorance. But, Sir, I have been hurried away into this eplogium upon my illustrious friend, by the warmth of my feelings, and had almost forgotten the original purport of my letter. In the Trial alluded to above, Sir Richard was asked, "Whether he ever "read or suffered his opinions to be in"fluenced by the criticisms of the Edin"burgh Review?" Sir Richard answered, upon his oath, "That he never read anony

[ocr errors]

mous scurrility;-that, upon the first "appearance of the Edinburgh Review, he "had looked into it, but that he had not "read it for these six years," &c. Now, Sir, it is with ineffable sorrow I relate, that no longer ago than the year 1865, a book entitled "A Voyage round the World, &c." was written by John Turnbull, and published by Sir Richard Phillips. This book is criticized in the Edinburgh Review for January 1807; and I have seen again and again a part of this criticism, which is extremely favourable, affixed, by way of recommendation, to the advertisements of the book in the public papers, and which advertisements are all evidently superintended by, and subscribed with the name of, Richard Phillips! The Attorney General, who, upon the trial, *seemed neither to be ave i into admiration by the impressive grandeur of Sir Richard's Court Dress, nor to consider him any more a man of letters than his postman, told the Jury with very bad manners, that "Sir

[ocr errors]

Richard had either shred in his evidence, "or was the greatest fool that ever trod the "earth." No candid man can accredite either of these insinuations; but that slander may be silenced and abashed, I hope Sir Richard will condescend to give an explanation of the mysterious circumstance to which I have alluded. In the mean time, I have the honour to subscribe myself, with homage bordering on idol-try, his most obsequious and devoted admirer,-GEORGE BEWLEY.Oxford, August 10, 1905.

TO SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART SIR.I beg leave to offer to your cons ation some remarks on the language im to you by the newspaper reporters of debate which took place in the Hous Commons on the 8th of June, on the entitled "The Stipendiary Curates' B Your speech, Sir, is variously given; in no report that I have seen can I disc that regard for first principles, and reprobation of abuse, which charact your observations on other topics; and hi as I respect the man, who in this ag venality and supineness, stands forward firm, upright, and unvarying assert the genuine principles of the English stitution, I cannot but regret that he si overlook the principles on which our e siastical establishment is founded. what purpose, let me ask, was the ch of England instituted? Was it that it n become an engine of state-that it m extend the influence of the crown br cing at its disposal the most valuable be ces? Was it that an asylum might be af ed to the helpless or unworthy relatives friends of the peers and wealthy com ers of the realm? If so, I could at understand, had it been put into the m of any one else, what you are repeite have said, about "overturning the system of clerical property," and "gir encroachments on the property of hy propriators." Coming from You, Sir Fra this language would still be unintelig But if, as it has always been declared, church was founded that the Chr religion might be preached to all rank the community, in its genuine, its pollated purity, where is the wrong making such alterations in the " syster clerical property" as will render that perty more subservient to the objec view? Property, I conceive, was cons with the church, that it might be so servient; and the legitimate use of it, i provide the needful maintenance of a i of men, whose business it is to apply th selves exclusively to the ministerial off and we find by different statutes, the fartherance of this intention, the clergy invested with certain privileges, and jected to certain disabilities, in regar their own continual attendance on their sa functions "—or as it is elsewhere expres that they may "attend the more close the service of Almighty God."-We k however, that in numerous cases the venues of the church are very differe applied. It is unnecessary to inquire f

what sources the ecclesiastical property has sprung-If it be correct that it professedly originated in the principle I have stated, (and this I believe will not be disputed), I contend that it is the duty of those who have the power to see that it is made use of in conformity with that principle.. You, Sir, inveigl. against a practice in the state of giving large salaries to men for performing the duties of certain offices, which are in fact filled by clerks, at much reduced though still sufficient salaries; this you justly term a prostitution of the public money. But where, let me ask, is the difference in the principle of appointing rectors who never visit their parishioners? In the effect, indeed, I see a difference by no means to the advantage either of the church or of the object of its institution; for how many of the halfpaid curates are constrained, by an anxiety to feed their families, to neglect "the sacred function" which has been abandoned to them by their overpaid superiors-the intention of the privileges and disabilities, to which, as already stated, the body of the clergy are by law made liable, being thus entirely defeated.--It appears to me to be a matter of no importance by whom is held the power of dispensing the livings of the church, so that laws exist to direct the manner in which it shall be exercised, and that it is exercised accordingly. Whether these livings are the property (we ought, I think, to say in the trust) of the church, or of lay impropriators, be it remembered that their revenues are wholly or in part derived from the public; and that certain duties are annexed to them, by the performance of which the public expect and have a right to "expect to be benefited. But if those who possess this power (who, I repeat, should only be considered in the light of trustees) apply any part of these revenues to the use either of themselves, or of men who though ordained of the church, regard neither their offices nor ought belonging to them save only their emoluments, how can the cause of religion be served, and where is the benefit which the public seek from the establishments? It is fit, therefore, that authority should somewhere exist to inquire by whom the revenues are received, and how the duties are performed; and I partly approve of the Stipendiary Curates' Bill," because to a certain point it would have given effect to this authority; but I also had chjections to it. These, however, did not arise from its interference with the property of the church. For the reasons already given,this,in the shape of strong parliamentary regulations, is Ithink, much to be wished for. My opinion is, that it was not sufficiently comprehen

[ocr errors]

sive-it did not go far enough-it should have been framed to compel the clergy to do their duty each jor kim elf-to oblige the mitred tords to reside in their several diocesesto be careful whom they admit into holy orders, but to see that when admitted the whole brotherhood, beneficed or not, faithfully discharged their solemn obligations. This, however, would, under present circumstances, be too much to expect; and I own I was glad to see even an attempt to distribute the salaries of the clergy on a standard more in conformity with the rules of arithmetic. If the higher order of the clergy are still to live by the labour of their curates, surely these (I say it with all due deference to the Christian benevolence of ecclesiastical proprietaries) ought to derive from the same source a comfortable subsistence for their families and themselves. I know not, Sir, whether you would call this overturning the whole system of clerical "property; but would it not lead to a purification of that system, which would render it more worthy of the religion it is intended to support?-You object to the additional power which would have been given by the bill in question to the bench of bishops, and to the attendant extension of the undue influence at elections to which clerical freeholders are already subject. Sir, I admit the full weight of these objections, and I do not mean to lessen it when I remark that they apply with nearly equal force to the pow er and influence now existing. If you could entirely destroy that power and influence, I might pause before I proceed to the argument I am about to advance; but I consider it only as a comparatively inconsiderable increase of an existing evil which would probably in a great measure remove an evil of vast and growing magnitude. Unquestionably this might be more effectually accomplished, (and without incurring your objections), by placing the power in the hands of the laity, which the bill would have given to the bishops. But this I only presume en passant to mention. Were I to propose it, I might revive the cry that the church is in danger;" and I should be sorry to disturb Mr. Perceval in the formation of his vigorous schemes or in his consultations with his mitred friends. -1 may be allowed, however, to express my regret that the stipendiary curates' bill should have afforded another proof of the influence of "the junto behind the throne."-That this subject should undergo a more ample discussion is not merely desirable, it is in my mind essential to the welfare of the establishment. The church, Sir, is more in danger from the mode pursued of appointing her ministers and of applying her revenues,

46

« AnteriorContinuar »