« AnteriorContinuar »
ore) is to be attributed to this masterly to audible measure, must unquestionably eue to the sagacity and judgment of the kos personage. Still, however, . I olog leave to suggest a doubt as to the once of recommending our patriotic * to imitate our example of enlightened convenient reform, by dismissing their onchios; since it might possibly be prose of some aukward consequences, by coing with their national prejudices. iam, Sir, &c. A. B. London, 0, 1898.
Sir Rich ARD PHillips, KNIGHT. of Sir Rich ARD ; – After carefully ong the different reports, in the news. 5, of the trial, Car R versus Hood, from my own recollection, I do not ise to say, that your assertion respecting obling of that report is not true.—The 4 non-ense you advance, about Rehardly deserves notice. That your d Review, your Public Characters, Travels in Spin, and all your other tations, are manufactured in the way present, no one who knows Sir Richard ps, or is acquainted with his tricks, oubt.—All the world knows that the the Statesman, and other newspapers, d a “ Life of Sir Richard Phillips,” ITTEN BY HIMSELF, and were for so doing.—But, for such a man to take credit to yourself for “er*g a craft,” of whom you and the is and the Cundees and the Murrays Hoggs, and the other manufacturers oichions are in hourly dread, is the is ultra of assurance.—As I do not to take up much time in convicting good Sir Richard, pray answer toe flowing questions, and I will inform and Mr.Coobett's readers, whether or not on waste your time in reading Reviews.” 1 you not threaten to withdraw your oluent from Gillet, the printer, behe printed the number of the Critical ow, in which PRATT's HAR vest Hoxie up 2 Did you not send your man, Hebridge, to the publishers of the burgh Review, to solicit the perusal of * Huluber, as you understood they had *! some by coach Does not Gillet one other printer to print those sheets * Satirist, which interfere with your *: Did you not dispatch your bro* law, Stor, when you returned **City feast, on June the 30th, at 11 kok at tight, to warn the wholesale book* not to sel, that month's Satirist? ** 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 jaw, 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 hutmble servantEcho.—London, August 11, 1808.
Mk. Bewley's LeTTER To SIR Richard PH 11.1. Irs. MR. Cop Bett;-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 Rich ARD 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 admiration both of the disinterestedness and the prudence of SIR Joh N 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 Mathematics, 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 arguinents of his antagonist, by citing the oracular and unerring judgment of the learned Knight in support of his own decisions. Stronge, 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 iong preserve' conferred disgrace and derision on us all, by pointing to its untimely death-bed. Let the guardian, however, of this interest
ing glove take courage and be comforted
Milton lived in ungrateful times, and many years rolled away before the merits of Piradise Lost were known or acknowledged'; and, even in our own days, Chatterton too inpatiently 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 epilogium upon my illustrious friend, by the warmth of my feelings, and had almost forgotten the original purport of my letter. In the Trial alloded 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“ mous scurrility ; –that, upon the first
“ appearance of the Edinburgh Review, he “ had looked into it, but that he had not org
read it for these six years,” &c. Now, Sir, it is with ineffable sorrow I relate, that no longer ago than the year 18'55, a book entitled “A Voyage rood th: 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 secn again and again a part of this criticism, which is extremely favourable, affixed, by way of recommendátion, 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 Philips' The Attorney General, who, upon the trial, seemed neither to be av e i ij to admiration by the impressive grandeur of Sir Richard's . Court Dress, not to consider him any more a man of letters than his post man, told the Jury with very bad manners, that “Sir “ Richard had either shored 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 exploration of the mysterious circonstance to which I have alloided.—In the mean time, I have the honour to subscribe myself, with homage bordering on idol try, his in st obsequio's and devoted admirer,-Goo: GE Bow Lex.— O for d, .44 grist 19, 1803
To S1 R FRAN cis BU RDFTT, EART. SIR.—I beg leave to offer to your consi ation some remarks on the language to to you by the newspaper reporters to debate which took place in the House 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 disco that regard for first principles, and reprobation of abuse, which charact your observations on other topics; and is as I respect the man, who in this ago venality and supineness, stands forward firm, upright, and unvarying asserto the genuine principles of the English stitution, I cannot but regret that he si overlook the principles on which our siastical establishment is founded. — what purpose, let me ask, was the ch of England instituted Was it that it become an engine of state—that it extend the influence of the crown by cing at its disposal the most valuable bed ces : Was it that an asylum might beat 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 report have said, about “overturning the w system of clerical property,"—and “s encroachments on the property of lay propriators.” Coming from You, Sir F this language would still be unintelig But if, as it has always been declared, church was founded that the Chri religion inight be preached to all rats the community, in its genuine, its polluted purity, where is the wrong making such alterations in the “system clerical property" as will render that perty more subservient to the object view Property, I conceive, was com: with the church, that it might be so 4 servient; and the legitimate use of it, it provide the necdful maintenance of a of men, whose business it is to apply to selves exclusively to the ministerial of and we find by different statutes, th: furtherance of this intention, the clergy invested with certain privileges, and jected to certain disabilitics, “in rega: their own continual attendance on their so functions "--or as it is elsewhere express that they may “attend the more close the service of Almight God.”—We kr " however, that in namerous cases the * venues of the church are very differeo" applied. It is unnecessary to inquire to
term a prostitution of the poblic money. Lut where, let me ask, is the difference in the principle of appointing rectors who never visit their parishioners? In the cliect, indeed, 1 see a difference by no means to the advaňtage 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 trusty of the church, or of lay in propriators, 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 pnblic 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 ojections to it. These, however, did notatise hom its interference with the property of the church. For the reasons already given, this, in the shape of strong parliamentary regulations, * ! think, much to be wished for. My opi"vois, that it was avtsujicicitly comprehen
sive—it did not go far enough—it should have been fran d to compel the clergy to do their duty each for him clf—to oblige the mitred lords to reside in their several dioceses— to 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 satile source a comfortable subsistence for their families and thenisclves. I know inct, 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 passent to mention. Were 1 to propose it, I might revive the cry that “the church is in danger;" and I should be sorry to disturb Mr. Percevai in the formation of his vigorous schemes or in his consultations with his mitred friends. —I 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 shod undergo a more armple discussion - not merely desirable, it is in ny mind essentia. In the welfare of the estoulishment. The church, Sir, is more in dunger from the mode pursued of appointing He tuiuisers and of applying lic reveau-s, to bring about a reform, than by joining in the factious and vulgar bawl of “no popery.” When the offices of the church are thus considered as so much property which, without regard to the duties annexed to them, may be bought and sold, how can we be surprised that offices in the state, and seats in the House of Commons should also be taken into the estimate of individual wealth They are all abuses belonging to the same system, they have a common origin, and are employed for a common purpose. Do you imagine, that when a rectory is sold, the wel12re of the parish is consulted 2 Far from it: you might as well suppose that attention is paid to the interest of the public, when places and boroughs are transferred from one possessor to another. No, Sir ; it is well it the parish do not suffer by the change. There are, I am aware, some cases which form honourable exceptions to his character; but so few are they, as to be scarcely worthy of mention, unless it be as examples of private exceijence exerted for the public good.—We are taught to regard our ecclesiastical and civil establishments as monuments of the wisdom and virtue of our forefathers—with more propriety may we look upon them as the remains. But when we hear that the friends of this young nobleman, or that young commonier, who has wasted his substance in riot and extravagance, are about to provide for him by procuring him a living, a place, or a borough, how can we avoid being reminded of two stupendous alni-houses, where highborn mendicants are charitably received 1, I request your attention, Sir, to the foregoing letter, and am, with every sentiment of res•ct—A FRIEND. To RADICAL Report M.– Liverpool, Aug. 20, 1808. Poon-Mitch AM.T SIR ;—As the reduction of the poor's rate is become an object of such national concern, not merely on pecuniary conside rations, but because it tends to dcbase and enervate the minds of the lower orders of the pecple, who were once considered, and ought now to be the strength of the country, I was pleased to see you relate in your valuable work, an account of some gentlemen who had been successful in lessening the burthen, and reforming the abuses of their respective parishes. You gave this relation in honourable testimony of their zeal, to shew the thing is practicable if ably
than from the united zeal for proselytism of executed, and to excite resident country all the sects; and those who pretend to be so gentlemen to the same laudable exertion. Alstaunchly her friends would better evince the low me, Sir, to introduce another case to sincerity of their professions by endeavouring the notice of your readers as a further stimulus.—The parish of Mitcham in the county
of Surrey, had for many years been suffering the dictatorship of Methodists and mem. bers of the Suppression of Vice Society under whose government the poor were fed on cheap provisions, rice and dried herrings; . a walk was raised two-fifths of a mile over ; the common, for the saints to visit and pray with the idle and profligate at the work. house; eternal complaints were made by the paupers to the bench of naagistrates, the rates were from 12 to 14 shillings in the . pound, and the parish were nearly so?00 in debt.—About 5 or 6 years ago a Mr. Moore, the lord of the manor, having some hundred acres of freehold, and occupying some a hundreds more, felt the increase of poor; . rates oppressively himself, and listening too. the complaints of the neighbourhood, although he had an exemption from parish cffices, yet offered himself to be one of the overseers; having held the office for 3, . years he paid off the old standing debt, re... duced the rate from 5s. to 5s. 6d, and le: st 100 in hand though the rate was burthered. with the half bounties for militia men, aid, the maintenance of their wives and families, which had not been the case in his predecessors' time ; though he apprenticed cut with parish fees between 30 and 40 of the chidren who before had been “fed with tre “ bread of idleness,” and though he at a very considerable experce repaired the workhouse.—His first step was to compel 2-5ths of the able but idle paupers to maintain. themselves, who had teen supported with-so out work at public expense, merely because they asiected saintship; the rest, who were not incapacitated by age or infirmity, were employed in labour according to thes abilites. No householder was excused paying rates for religious or political party's sake; every man rening above £5 per annum was compelled to pay his share of the burthen ; the lower orders thereby feeling the obligation they were under to the larger renters for their larger share of the compulsive subscription, which they were least likely ever to be benefited by themselves : thus the poorer part became concerned in keeping the rate low ; while the actual paupers were rendered more comfortable, are better fed and clothed, are key: in babits of industry and led to sober habits of religion. (To be continued.)
Printed by Cox and Boys, Great Queen Street; published by R. Bashaw, Brydgossiest, cover:Garden, where forms. Numbers may be had : sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pali-Mali.
Vol. XIV. No. 11.] LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1898. [Price iod.
“Curls are not cannons; hair-powder is not gun-powder, tails are not bayonets. “aminunition, by which the enemies of Russia are to be defeated.”
Are these the arms and
SUMMARY OF POLITICS.
Portugal. Of the victories, obtained over the French, in Portugal, by the English army, under the command of Sir Arthur Wellesley, and which victories are detailed in the official papers contained in this sheet, it is unnecessary to attempt to speak in praise ; but, as far as we can judge from the accounts yet received, they certainly reflect the greatest honour on the army as well as on the commanders of every rank. It was, in my opinion, fully proved before, that our troops, when well commanded, were for superior to the French troops. I never regarded the assertion of that superiority as an empty boast. There were always reasons why our troops should be intrinsically better, and there was abundant experience to verify the theory. But, now, I should imagine, it will be very difficult for the French, though masters of the press of Europe, to prevent that fact from being acknowledged all over the world. In this point of view tone, then, our success is of vast importance. The victory, though not more glorious to the nation, is, in this as well as in other parts of its consequences, near and remote, of far greater importance to us than the victory of Trafalgar, which gave no new turn to the war, excited no great degree of feeling in the nations of Europe, and did not, in the least, arrest the progress of the French arms or diminish their fame or that dread of those arms which universally prewailed The consequences of this victory will be, first, a thorough conviction in the mind of every man in this kingdom, that the French, when met by us upon any thing like equal terms, are pretty sure to be beaten, which conviction will produce a confidence in our means of defence which did not unequivocally exist before, it will dissipate all the unmanly apprehensions about the threatened invasion, and, of course, it will, in a short time, relieve the country, in great part at least, from the inconvenience and distress, which, in so many ways, arise from the present harrassing system of internal defence. Secondly, this victory, gained under such circumstances, will take off from *bat dread, in which the French arms have
Su wa Hoff. [386
timid ; it will make him hesitate; it will fill him with apprehensions; it will enervate his councils; the consequence of which may be his total overthrow ; particularly as his rigorous maritime and commercial regulations are so severely felt in all the countries under his control. Amongst the minor consequences of this victory (taking for granted that it will lead to the total evacuation of Portugal by the French) will be a speedy and bloodless settlement of our dispute with America, which is costing us something in precautionary measures. The American trade to Spain and Portugal was very great ; and to trade thither now, as well as with the colonies of those countries, we can, if they behave well, give them leave.—The merit of the ministers in sending out this expedition, in their plan of operations, in their choice of a commander, and in every part of the enterprize, no man of a just mind will, whatever be his sentiments in other respects, attempt to deny. They would, if the thing had failed, have been loaded with no small share of the blame; it would, therefore, be the height of injustice to withhold from thern their share of the praise. Indeed, it cannot be denied, that almost the whole of their measures, with respect to foreign countries, have been strongly marked with foresight, promptitude, and vigour. Their Orders in Council, against which Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Roscoe, and the Barings, so bitterly inveighed, have been one cause, and not a trifling one, of the events in Spain and Portugal, into which countries we could not have entered had not the people been with us, and that the people were with us, arose, in great part, from those despair-creating effects, which were produced by the Orders in Council, which orders they could not fail to ascribe to Napoleon, nor could they fail to perceive, that, N