I

the name of Fletcher among the Roman Catholic Clergy, or Teachers, as enumerated in the Laity's Directory, published by Keating and Co.; and which is a sort of Aunual Register of every thing pertaining to their religion in this kingdom. have been led, however, I think, to the true name, by what is farther slated in the Irish Magazine. It describes this Mr. Fletcher as the ingenious Author of "The Spirit of Religious Controversy." Of this tract, it being out of print, I have not been able to get a sight: but I find, upon the undoubted authority of Keating and Co. in their Catalogue at the end of the Directory for this year, that certain Sermons on the Unity of the Church, lately published, are by the author of that work: and from the Letter of Dr. Milner to Lord Stourton, published at the end of Mr. Keogh's Veto, I think I can discover also that the author of those Sermons (for I know of no other Sermons to which Dr. Milner could be alluding) is Mr. Archer. And I therefore conclude, not only from this, but from the conformity both in matter and style of those Sermons, with the Remarks on the Bishop of Durham, as well as their being printed in the same place; that he is also the author of the Remarks. The circumstance of their being all printed at Newcastle, though sold and advertised by the London booksellers, is not immaterial; when it is certain that Mr. Archer lives near town; I believe at Richmond. That this was the case with the author of the Sermons, I was informed at the bookseller's. He is also, I understand, a very popular Preacher, which I can easily believe, as his books are written with a degree of liveliness aud elegance, not common among the Romish Clergy in this country. With the merits and demerits of this gentleman, however, I do not mean to trouble you but simply to ascertain what, considering the character and situation of the Bishop of Durham, may be a point of some interest; that is, the real name of his Remarker. Is it, or is it not, Mr. Archer? I shall be obliged to any of your Correspondents for certain information on this head. Yours, &c.

THO. LE MESURIER.
GENT. MAG. December, 1810.,

Mr. URBAN, St. John's-squ. Dec. 7.

AN original letter from the Printer

Baskerville, to Lord Orford, having lately fallen into my hands, I inclose it for insertion in your Monthly Repository of Literary Rarities. How greatly must we regret the projected sale of his estate, for payment of a debt incurred for borrowed capital to print his Bible, when we witness the price which it now produces, whenever offered for sale, more particularly when we reflect, that, though entitled to this estate from his birth, Baskerville appropriated the produce of it, during the lives of his parents, to their comfort and support.

"SIR,

"Easy Hill, Birmingham,

2d Nov. 1762. “As the Patron and Encourager of Arts, and particularly that of Printing, I have taken the liberty of sending you a specimen of mine, begun ten years ago at the age of forty-seven ; and prosecuted ever since, with the utmost care and attention; on the strongest presumption, that if I could fairly excel in this divine art, it would make my affairs easy, or at least give me Bread. But, alas in both I was mistaken. The Booksellers do not chuse to encourage me, though I have offered them as low terms as I could possibly live by; nor dare i attempt an old Copy, till a Law-suit relating to that affair is determined.

"The University of Cambridge have given me a Grant to print their 8vo and 12mo Common Prayer Books; but under such shackles as greatly hurt me. I pay them for the former twenty, and for the latter twelve pounds ten shillings the thousand, and to the Stationers' Company thirtytwo pounds for their permission to print one edition of the Psalms in Metre to the small Prayer-book: add to this, the great expence of double and treble carriage; and the inconvenience of a Printing House an hundred miles off. All this summer I have had nothing to print at home. My folio Bible is pretty far advanced at Cambridge, which will cost me near £2000, all hired at 5 per Cent.

If

Moulds for casting, and all the apparatus for Printing, were made in my own Shops."

Dec. 6.

Mr. URBAN, THE following notices of Sir Richard Fulmerstone, knt. although very slight, may possibly be of some service to your Correspondent Antiquarius, who enquires after him, in p. 426.

The Fulmerstones appear to have been a Norfolk family, where they were seated many years previous to the time of Sir Richard. In 1479, Robert Fulmerston, of Stow, was one of the feoffees of Henry Bixle, of Thetford, of and in Ladies Manor, in Rockland Tofts, in the county of Norfolk; and in 1494, Robert Fulmerston, and others, his co-feoffees, held their first court for that manor, which, in 1498, they conveyed to others.

Sir

Sir Richard himself was, probably, a native of Norfolk; and born at or in the neighbourhood of Lopham : for in 1566, Thomas Fulmerstone, his relation, resided in that parish, and had two sons, Thomas and Richard, and a brother, Christopher, who had a son named John. Richard was Marshal of the King's Bench in the time of Edward VI.; as appears by an original grant in the hands of Mr. Le Neve, from Thomas Duke of Norfolk, of that office, to Thomas Gaudy, esq. of Gandy-hall, son of Thomas Gaudy, serjeant-atlaw, deceased, dated Nov. 25, 4 Eliz.

After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the subject of these observations appears to have obtained grants of many lands, &c. belonging lately to those houses, In 1537, the King leased the site of the Nuns in Thetford, to Richard Fulmerston, of Ipswich, gent. for 21 years; and in 1540, he had an absolute grant of it. He soon afterwards turned the Church of this Religious House into lodgings, and other convenient rooms, and went himself to live there. On the 29th March, 29 Henry VIII. he had a grant of the site of the Monastery of Weybridge, in Norfolk, with all the manors belonging thereto. On the 31st of July, 2 Edw. VI. Edward Duke of Somerset conveyed to bim the manor of Thetford, in Norfolk; and by indenture, dated

4 and 5 Philip and Mary, Thomas Duke of Norfolk sold to him the manors of Elden and Stanes in Suffolk, and the advowson of Elden, &c. and Saarehill manor and warren in Norfolk, in exchange for other lands. He had also grants of other manors, lands, &c. in Norfolk, late the property of the dissolved Monasteries, part of which he sold during his lifetime, and part were enjoyed by his descendants.

Sir Richard received the honour of knighthood between the years 1557 and 1565. He married Alice

by whom he had a daughter Frances, aged at his death 28 years, and married to Edward Clere, esq. (son and heir of Sir John Clere, of Ormesby, in the county of Norfolk, knt.) who in her right became heir of Sir Richard's great possessions. By his will, which is dated Jan. 23, 1566, he directed his body to be buried in the parishchurch of St. Mary in Thetford, on the North side of the chapel there, without pomp and vain-glory.

He

First, "that the Discoverer (of course Dr. Jenner) has deserted the post assigned him by the College" and secondly, "that he has acknowledged the inoculation of his own child with the Small Pox." The whole letter stands or falls on the truth or falsehood of this paragraph.

Confident as I was, from the general tenour of Dr. Jenner's conduct, that the whole was, at least, founded on erroneous information; I nevertheless, though wholly unacquainted with him, immediately determined on addressing him, at Berkeley, on the subject. I abstracted the first paragraph, and with every apology, as I hope, entreated he would answer the three following questions, which I drew up strongly, to embrace a complete refutation.

The answers

I received are candid, explicit, and open; and as it was spontaneously offered me to make any extract í pleased, I shall avail myself of the opportunity, to answer the questions

in the Doctor's own words.

The questions put were; viz. First. Did you ever hold any post or situation under the College? and, if you did, why did you desert-it?

Secondly. Did you ever inoculate your own son with the Small Pox? and, if you did, what were your rea

sons ?

Thirdly. Are your opinions, as formerly declared and written, entertained, after the same manner, to this moment, and with equal force ?

The answers received were as follows, verbatim.

First. "I never held any situation, whatever, under the College. I was nominated Director of the National Vaccine Establishment; but did not accept the office."

66

Secondly. My two eldest child reu were inoculated with the Small Pox, before I began to inoculate for the Cow Pox. My youngest son, Robert F. Jenner, was born soon after my experiments commenced; and, with several others, exactly in the same way, and with lymph taken from the same pustule, as the rest; but the appearance, excited by its insertion, produced an effect that lasted two or three days only, and then died away. By referring to my first work on the Cow Pox, you will see his case mentioned. In a short

appears, that the Smail Pox, in a very virulent form, has lately prevailed in that town:

"The beginning of the Epidemic was clearly traced to the neighbouring villages, where the contagion had long been indu triously supported by the baneful practice of Small Pox Inoculation."

"460 persons had the Small Pox during the prevalence of the Epidemic; out of which number, 131 died, being in the proportion of 2 in 7 of those afflicted with the disease."

“20 children were inoculated for Small Pox; of which number, one died."

"During the eight months that this Epidemic Small Pox prevailed in the town, 1012 persons were vaccinated bythe Institution, 86 of whom had been exposed to Small Pox in the same habitation, for many days previous. The Small Pox in 33 of them, was, by this method, altogether prevented. In 46, the Small

Pox and Cow Pock acted on the constitution at the same time; in all these cases, the Small Pox was particularly mild: and in 7 persons only did the Cow Pock fail to take effect; in these the Small Pox proceeded as usual."

It is plain, therefore, from the above statement, that independent of the 86 persons who were vaccinated after exposure to Small Pox contagion, 926 persons were preserved from the hazard of this destructive malady, by the kindly process of Vaccination. Had these 926 persons taken the Small Pox naturally, 262 would, according to the above computation, have died of it; so that the inhabitants of Nottingham are indebted to Vaccination for preserving 262 of their number from death, in the short period of eight months. Verily, the Undertakers of Nottingham have great reason to be dissatisfied with the Cow Pock.

The same Report informs us, that by the Vaccine Institution at Notting ham, 2784 persons have been vaccinated: of these, one was not secured from the virulence of the Small Pox contagion, but took the disease, and died. If, therefore, one failure out of 2784 cases, ought to set aside this beneficial practice, I have no more to say in its favour. Let it, however, be recollected, that had these 2784 persons taken the Small Poxnaturally, at least 600 would have died of it; and had they all been inoculated for the Small Pox, at least 27 would have died of it, whereas the loss now is only one.

With these, and many more such facts staring him in the face, your Correspondent P. P. can entertain but very faint hopes of injuring the pras tice of Vaccination;

injurioso nec pede proruetSTANTEM COLUMNAM."

Your Correspondent is acquainted with Mr. Birch's publications: from them he has probably learned to "consider this pestilential disease [the Small Pox] as a merciful provision on the part of Providence, to lessen the burthen of a poor man's family *;" and having used his endea vours to prevent us from preserving our children, he likewise seems very desirous of taking due care, that we may not too long be encumbered 'with our wives; and therefore he wishes to deprive them of the assistance of Men-midwives. For those who have no such desire, it may be sufficient to say, that the Bills of Mortality shew a di minution of deaths in child-bed, in the proportion of about 4 to 1, since the practice of Midwifery has passed from the hands of Women into those of a pretty convincing proof of the advantage which our wives have derived from the change. Yours, &c.

men;

Mr. URBAN,

0.0,

Nov. 23.

LLOW me to offer a correction or two in a Life of the late Bi

shop of London, which has lately ap peared by a Layman. Though it may not, perhaps, be absolutely necessary, that a Biographer should be intimately acquainted with the subject of his work, yet that he should possess some knowledge of him whose character and opinions he professes to delineate, will not, I conceive, be questioned. The work does not appear to be ill written; and I am. willing to give the author credit for good intention, in publishing it; yet, when he speaks of the good Bishop's towering form and figure, p. 258, it is scarcely possible to conceive, that he could ever have seen him; as to all your Readers who have, it can scarcely be necessary to observe, that he was a short, thin, delicate

"Serious Reasons for uniformly objecting to the Practice of Vaccination, by John Birch," &c. p. 28.

man