Imágenes de página
[ocr errors]

"I must tell you a bon-mot of Winnington's. I was at dinner with him and Lord Leicester and Lord Stafford last week, and it happened to be a maigre-day, of which Stafford was talking, though, you may believe, without any scruples. Why,' said Winnington, 'what a religion is yours! They let you eat nothing, and yet make you swallow every thing."

Walpole's lighter Poems, and what are called Les Vers de Société, are not so happily touched off as we might have expected from the general ease of his manner, and elegance of his talents. A few verses, supposed to be sent by his lapdog Patapan to Mr. Chute, occur at p. 325, and are a fair specimen of his manner :

"I am so nice; who ever saw
A Latin book on my sofá ?
You'll find as soon a primer there,
Or recipes for pastry-ware.
Why, do you think I ever read
But Crebillon, or Calprenede ?
This very thing of Mr. Chute's
Scarce with my taste or fancy suits.

Oh! had it but in French been writ,
'Twere the genteelest, sweetest bit!
One hates a vulgar English poet;

I vow t'ye I should blush to show it
To women de ma connoissance,
Did not that agreeable stance

Cher double entendre! furnish means
Of making sweet pata pavins !"

Occasionally we meet with new anecdotes of our old acquaintance: "Pope (he writes in a letter May 1744) is given over with a dropsy, which is mounted into his head. In an evening he is not in his senses. The other day at Chiswick he said to my Lady Burlington, Look at our Saviour there; how ill Higham has crucified him.' We are now mad about tar-water, on the publication of a book that I will send you, by Dr. Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. The book contains every subject, from tar-water to the Trinity. However, all the women read, and understand it no more than if it were intelligible. A man came into an apothecary's shop the other day. Do you sell tar-water?' 'Tar-water,' replied the apothecary, * I sell nothing else.' Adieu.”

[ocr errors]

Some verses are given at p 379 on Pope's death, which we never met with before, and which from their sentiment and style we presume to be Walpole's own, though he afterwards disclaims them :

"Here lies, who died, as most folks die, in hope,
The mouldering, more ignoble part of Pope,
The bard whose sprightly genius dared to wage
Poetic war with our commercial age;
Made ev'ry vice and private folly known
In friend or foe-a stranger to his own;
Set virtue in its loveliest form in view,
And still profess'd to be the sketch he drew.
As humour or as interest serv'd, his verse
Could praise or flatter, libel or asperse;
Unharming innocence with guilt could load,
Or lift the rebel patriot to a God;
Give the censorious critic standing laws,
The first to violate them with applause.
The just translator, and the solid wit,
Like whom the passions few so truly hit;
The scourge of dunces whom his malice made;
The impious plague of the defenceless dead.
To real knaves and real fools a sore,
Belov'd by many, but abhorr'd by more:
If here his merits are not full express'd,
His never-dying strains shall tell the rest."

We shall conclude our extracts for the present with the latter part of one of his letters in Aug. 1744:

"I heard of an admirable dialogue which has been written at the Army on the battle of Dettingen, but one can't get a copy. I must tell you two dry strokes in it I have heard. Pierot asks Harlequin-Que donne t'on aux Generaux qui ne se sont pas trouvés à la bataille? HARL. On leur donne le cordon rouge. PIER. Et que donne t'on au General en Chef [Lord Stair] qui a gagné la victoire? congé, PIER. Qui a soin des blessés ? HARL. Ennemi. Adieu." (To be continued.)



MR URBAN,-As you have ever been the watchful guardian and protector of the sacred rights of the Established Church, I can have no hesitation in addressing you upon a subject vitally affecting its interests. It is no less than the contemplated destruction of numerous Churches in the city of London, some of them part of the admired works of Sir Christopher Wren. This extensive scheme of demolition proceeds, it is said, upon the suggestion of a Committee of the Corporation of London, whose predecessors, only a few years ago, without going further back, would have shrunk with horror at the meditated desecration, and with one heart and voice have preserved the sacred temples of Religion, as well as the resting places of the dead, from wanton violence and rude intrusion.

The specious pretence for such an act of rash and unfeeling outrage, is stated to be grounded upon the expediency of consolidating small Benefices and Parishes, in order to widen streets, reduce the Church Rates,* and promote the residence and increase the efficiency of the Parochial Clergy.

Now, Mr. Urban, in the first place the mere widening of streets is not a sufficient plea for the demolition of a sacred edifice; and there is not one solitary instance where the projection of a Church in great public thoroughfares, imperiously requires it; and even if imperious necessity did require it, due regard should be had to the rights of incumbents and parishioners, and the decent disinterment and removal of the remains of the dead. In the most rude and barbarous nations places of sepulture have ever been held sacred, and guarded with scrupulous care against unhallowed interference and wanton desecration.

I am aware that many excellent individuals have expressed their objection to the custom which has prevailed for many centuries of the burial of the dead in churches, and, as a substitute, have proposed the formation of cemeteries in large and open spaces, and in the environs of cities and towns; but the same individuals have shuddered at the idea of a wanton violation of the existing repositories of the remains of the dead. They considered that the very memorials of the departed awakened recollections which hallowed the ground in which they rested. The late instance of the numerous disinterments which took place from the church of St. Michael, Crooked-lane (notwithstanding provision was made by Act of Parliament for the decent performance of that mournful duty), was most painful to the feelings of relatives and friends, and also to a numerous part of the public who witnessed it. The constant cry of remonstrance was heard; and it was loudly contended that, even in that instance, the demolition was effected for the mere lengthening of the approach to the new London Bridge. Indeed, no actual necessity existed, as the church itself stood at a sufficient distance from the bridge to have made suitable collateral roads branching from it on each side; the edifice could have been made an interesting object to the view, standing as it did, in the very centre of the straight line of the vista from the bridge; and an enormous sum would have been saved in the unnecessary destruction of houses and property, not to speak of the expences of the removal of the dead from that church alone, which, it is stated, amounted to no less than 4,0007.; and when the numerous disinterments are considered, it could scarcely be expected to be carried into effect with due decorum for less. Now indeed

Are there not estates left in some parishes for general purposes. Have not these lessened the rates?

it is said to be proposed, with reckless indifference to common decency, to remove the dead by contract; whereas in the Act for the removal of the dead from St. Michael Crooked-lane, it was provided that such removal should be to churches or consecrated ground, selected by the heirs, executors, administrators, relations, or friends of the deceased.* Whilst upon this part of the subject it may not be improper to remark upon the incongruity of the conduct of the City Authorities, who, although their professed object was that of widening and promoting the convenience of adjacent thoroughfares, have actually built a range of houses projecting across the direct line of communication between the two Eastcheaps.

Upon the proposal of consolidating small Benefices and parishes, it may be observed, that no forcible measure of that nature, including the demolition of Churches, should be rashly determined on, and particularly in those situations where the destruction of a Church, and the throwing the whole or part of its site into the public street, would not be even a partial convenience. To make such a scheme of benefit, especially in bye streets, and where the Churches do not materially project beyond the range of houses on either side of them, the buildings for a considerable space adjacent must also be removed.

But it is not pretended that such extensive and costly alterations (even if they were absolutely requisite, which it is submitted they are not,) are entertained by these despoilers: but it is THE CHURCH, which is to be sacrificed; and whether the parties intend it or not (which for charity's sake we would hardly suppose of the Corporation of London), it is no other in effect than a deadly blow affecting our Church Establishment. It is possible that the excellent and pious Archbishop of the Province, as well as the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, overwhelmed with the incessant but injust attacks made against the clergy of London, may have consented to the principle of some arrangement for the consolidation of small parishes; which, whilst it may satisfy for the moment (and only for the moment) the outcry raised against the incumbents, may also provide for their successors a more ample stipend, so as to ensure residence, and render other preferment unnecessary; but it is much to be feared that those worthy prelates will find themselves mistaken in the expectation they may have indulged. It is true that the principle of consolidation of the parishes in the city of London, has of late years been acted upon in the instance of St. Magnus London Bridge, St. Margaret's New Fish-street, and St. Michael Crooked-lane: but that was a matter of obligation, in consequence of the latter parish being compulsorily deprived altogether of its Church, and should form no rule for taking away the Church of any other parish against the will and consent of the parishioners. The plea of the Fire of London may also be urged, when various parishes were united; but that was when the sites of the Parish Churches were laid open by the devastation of fire, and the edifices themselves were reduced to ruin. Where, however, Churches now exist (all of them of no little importance, and some of them too of great beauty and architectural skill,) the case is widely different; and the wanton destruction of these becomes an act of scandalous interference both with the rights of the living and the remains of the dead. It is easy, Mr. Urban, to pull down and destroy, and so the materials of a costly and beautiful edifice became immediately of little or no value. Their destruction, particularly if not wanted for great public im

Circulars were sent to friends and relatives of the deceased, that all might be done "decently and in order."

provements, becomes therefore not only unnecessary but barbarous. It is true that, as to several of them, if they did not already exist where they now are as resting places for the dead, they might, in reference to the small population and size of the parishes, be removed, and the parishes (with consent of the parishioners, and not without that consent) be united to others. But even in that case, which is the strongest that can be assigned for their removal, the voice of propriety, nay, of justice, would be reasonably raised against any such measure, where they are situated out of any great public thoroughfare.

The instance of the sweeping away of the Church of St. Michael, Crooked Lane, it may again be repeated, cannot be at all cited as an example to be followed, because it was unnecessary to continue the approach from London Bridge in a straight line beyond its site; but, that measure having been previously determined upon, the church was removed by consent, and its destruction, with all its attendant horrors of desecration, accordingly took place. The parishioners were soothed into acquiescence by being wholly relieved from any future payment in respect of tithes, their separate rights and estates as a parish were preserved to them, their contribution to church repairs was limited to one-third of the charges attendant in that respect for the church of St. Magnus, towards the repewing of which for their accommodation a large sum was paid by the City, who also wholly paid the expences of removal of the dead, and cleaning and transferring the monumental tablets and grave-stones to the latter church. But now, it is not pretended that the City are to invest a sum to produce equal to the amount of the annual payments in lieu of tithes, as in the case of St. Michael, Crooked Lane. The ashes of the dead are not to be removed to any other depository at the instance of the heir, or personal representative, or relation, or friend of the deceased; but to be forcibly wrested from their control by the cheapest mode of removal which can be effected, the contract, as reported, of some undertaker! No voice in the disposition of monuments or tablets of affectionate recollection, is to be allowed to parishes or families, to perpetuate the memories of benefactors, ancestors, or relatives. The sites of churches are to be hastily swept away and effaced; and, on the sacred spot where once the consecrated fabric stood reviving feelings of religion, associated with the earliest recollections of the parishioners, the busy hum of commerce is to subdue all feelings of piety and affection. Neither let it be supposed that the parishioners are to be benefited by so unsanctified an exchange, and more particularly those of the present generation. They are to be driven like a flock of sheep (and silly sheep they will be if they submit to it) to some adjacent parish, there to contribute to the repairs of a church, equally, if not more, expensive than their own; and, indeed, in this respect the proffered boon will shew how easily they are to be duped, if duped they suffer themselves to be, as the saving of expense in any City parish will be. small indeed; for many of them have estates for the repairs of their church, whilst others have lately expended considerable sums, which would render any further outlay unnecessary for years to come.

On the other hand, they will be required to contribute to any alterations in the pewing of Churches to which they are newly allied; they must bear the same charge for tithes, poor's rates, and parochial fees as heretofore; and as to benefiting by the change, it is a gross and delusive bait. Why then is the present constitution of parishes to be disturbed?

If it be allowed to the fullest extent, that at present the attendance at some of our City Churches is but small, yet circumstances may change,

and the time may come when their destruction may be deeply deplored; and the regret for their loss will be unavailable. The insignificant value of the materials, when the edifice is destroyed, should make the parishioners pause, and seriously reflect, before they are caught in the net of the ruthless despoiler, the crafty calculator, or even the pretended friend of the Church.

I cannot but believe that these, and more solemn considerations, will cross the minds of our Prelates, and of every true friend of Church and State. Incessant are the attempts made to disunite them. Not content with the exercise of the freedom of opinion, the infidel and the dissolute combine in inveterate hostility against our Established Church; and, indeed, against religion altogether. Some classes of Sectarists, upon other grounds, point the finger of scorn at our sacred temples, and denominate both its ministers and its faith as Antichrist. Many, indeed, there are, particularly of the Wesleyan and Independent dissenters, who build their faith in common with the churchmen upon the main and essential doctrinal articles and homilies of the Church of England, and only differ in point of form and discipline. These are not amongst the number of levellers and church destroyers. In the true spirit of Christian regard, they look upon churchmen as brethren ; and, as they value and protect their own places of worship, they wish not to see those of the Established Church destroyed.

I hope the good spirit of the Christian and reflecting part of the public will effectually oppose this sad design of wanton desecration from being carried into execution. They will naturally assert the rights of their parishioners in regard to the fabric of their church, nor suffer it to be torn from them by the machinations of a party, whose object may be to get some of themselves appointed as Commissioners under authority of an act of the legislature, without the common courtesy of consulting the parishioners; and to have the freehold of such churches they may think fit to mark out for destruction, together with the church-yards, vested in themselves; who are to have the whole disposition of the remains of the dead, to let the sites of the churches and churchyards on building leases, and to sell the fee simple for the purpose, not of any ecclesiastical object, but for the widening of streets generally. This is their ruthless and barbarous intention. They seem to care not whether their design is justifiable; but that, if by any plausible pretext they can destroy a church, their wishes are satisfied.

No right, moral, political, or divine, can be cited to justify the measure, under the motives now assigned. Parishes cannot justly be interfered with, or their churches destroyed, against their will and consent; if so, there is no security for any kind of property. One man may with equal propriety say to another, "I can manage your property better than yourself, and I will interfere, and manage it for you; which is never permitted except in cases of lunacy, and lunatics they will be who suffer it. Another man may say, "you have more property than I think you need, or whether you do or not, I want some of it, and will take it." ther may say, "By the industry, prudence, or good fortune of your ancestors, your parish is less heavily burthened than mine-- you shall no longer enjoy the advantages you possess both parishes shall be put upon an equality; and thus the blessed reign of liberty and equality is to commence. Britons, Christians, and men! spurn the unholy attempt, and nobly resolve to protect the altars and consecrated ground of your country and your God!

Dec. 20, 1833.



« AnteriorContinuar »