was such as to require the employment of the royal chief, in which opinion they will, I be lieve, be joined by most men of sense. It appears to be quite an easy job to beat the French in Spain. CORIOLANUS should be reserved for desperate enterprizes and a time of peril.

-But, why did this at once soft-brained and malignant writer return, just as he was coming to a close, to the subject of the Duke's military character? Why could he not let that sleep?" His royal “highness," says he, would doubtless "deep it an indirect injustice to himself, to enter into any vindication of his professional capacity. Nor will the friends

66

"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 de"cision."―Indeed? Why, then, did you, at the outset of your miserable pamphlet, spend so much time upon this vindication You there, in your way, endeavoured to convince us, by reasoning, that the Duke of York was a competent general; and now you tell us, that to endeavour to produce such conviction would be an injustice to the Duke. Such are the inconsistencies, into which men fall, when they write without principle.In conclusion, this wretched writer tells us to appeal to the army for the character of the Duke. The army! The army! What! to the whiskered or 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 in high-crowned caps? To the army! Are you not ashamed, insolent as you are, to bid us make such an appeal. No.: we are bound by no rule of this sort. We are not to be told to judge of any commander from what those under his command will say of him; but, from his deeds, wherein we know him full as well as they can. Oh, caitiff, you deserve to be skinned for what you have said upon this part of your subject. To tell us, that the Duke's "best "reward is the love of the army!" Why, what is the army itself, but a body, whose conduct is a proper subject of criticism with the public? The army may be most competent to judge of the character of commissaries or barrack-masters; but of those who command in battles, the public can judge as well, or better, than the army.I must not conclude this article without noticing one very material circumstance. I now perceive, at a moment when I have not time to go through a comparison of the whule, that I have been copying from

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, for very obvious reasors, is seldom a member of this closet "council; all the other princes are almost

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," adds the Chronicle, “ we conceive, that it must "have had the concurrence of the highest "authority in the kingdom."And,while it is saying this, observe, this paper protests solemnly against eve 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, to gether 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 libeller! Verily the Morning Chronicle surpasses in assurance even the writer of this pamphlet, of which I shall now take my

བས་

place) is to be attributed to this masterly and laudable measure, must unquestionably be due to the sagacity and judgment of the illustrious personage. Still, however, I should beg leave to suggest a doubt as to the prudence of recommending our patriotic allies to imitate our example of enlightened and convenient reform, by dismissing their moustachios; since it might possibly be productive of some aukward consequences, by interfering with their national prejudices. -I am, Sir, &c.-A. B.- London, Aug. 6, 1808.

TO SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS, KNIGHT. DEAR SIR RICHARD; ~After carefully collating the different reports, in the news papers, of the trial, CARR versus HOOD, and from my own recollection, I do not hesitate to say, that your assertion respecting the garbling of that report is not true.-The absurd nonsense you advance, about Reviews, hardly deserves notice. That your Oxford Review, your Public Characters, your Travels in Spain, and all your other publications, are manufactured in the way you represent, no one who knows Sir Richard Phillips, or is acquainted with his tricks, can doubt. All the world knows that the Star, the Statesman, and other newspapers, inserted a "Life of Sir Richard Phillips," WRITTEN BY HIMSELF, and were PAID for so doing. But, for such a man as you, to take credit to yourself for "exposing a craft," of whom you and the Crosbys and the Cundees and the Murrays and the Hoggs, and the other manufacturers of publications are in hourly dread, is the ne plus ultra of assurance.--As I do not mean to take up much time in convicting you, good Sir Richard, pray answer me the following questions, and I will inform you and Mr. Cobbett's readers, whether or not "You waste your time in reading Reviews." -Did you not threaten to withdraw your employment from GILLET, the printer, be cause he printed the number of the Critical Review, in which PRATT'S HARVEST HOME is cut up? Did you not send your man, Hucklebridge, to the publishers of the Edinburgh Review, to solieit the perusal of a late number, as you understood they had received some by coach? Does not GILLET get some other printer to print those sheets of the Satirist, which interfere with your interests? Did you not dispatch your brother-in law, SURR, when you returned from a city feast, on June the 30th, at 11 o'clock at night, to warn the wholesale booksellers, not to sell that month's Satirist? Did 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 Sy monds, 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 servantECHO.-London, August 11, 1809.

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 ex"cited such universal attention, the World of Letters has been held in admiration 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 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 coutroversialist 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 erudi- * tion, 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

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 eulogium 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.

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 1805, 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 awed 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

Richard had either slipped 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 idolatry, his most obsequious and devoted admirer,-GEORGE BEWLEY.-→→ Qaford, August 10, 1809.

To SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART. SIR,-I beg leave to offer to your consideration some remarks on the language imputed to you by the newspaper reporters of the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 8th of June, on the bill entitled "The Stipendiary Curates' Bill."Your speech, Sir, is variously given; but in no report that I have seen can I discover that regard for first principles, and that reprobation of abuse, which characterise your observations on other topics; and highly as I respect the man, who in this age of venality and supineness, stands forward the firm, upright, and unvarying assertor of the genuine principles of the English constitution, I cannot but regret that he should overlook the principles on which our ecclesiastical establishment is founded, — For what purpose, let me ask, was the church of England instituted? Was it that it might become an engine of state-that it might extend the influence of the crown by pla cing at its disposal the most valuable benefi ces? Was it that an asylum might be afford ed to the helpless or unworthy relatives and friends of the peers and wealthy common. ers of the realin? If so, I could at once understand, had it been put into the mouth of any one else, what you are reported to have said, about "overturning the whole system of clerical property," and "similar eucroachments on the property of lay im propriators." Coming from you, Sir Francis, this language would still be unintelligible. But if, as it has always been declared, the church was founded that the Christian religion might be preached to all ranks i the community, in its genuine, its unpolluted purity, where is the wrong, making such alterations in the system of clerical property" as will render that property more subservient to the object in view? Property, I conceive, was connected with the church, that it might be so subservient; and the legitimate use of it, is to provide the needful maintenance of a body of men, whose business it is to apply themselves exclusively to the ministerial office: and we find by different statutes, that in furtherance of this intention, the clergy are invested with certain privileges, and subjected to certain disabilities, in regard of their own continual attendance on their sacred functions"-or as it is elsewhere expressed, that they may "attend the more closely to the service of Almighty God."-We know, however, that in numerous cases the revenues of the church are very differently applied. It is unnecessary to inquire from

"

in

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, inveigh 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 objections 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, I think, much to be wished for. My opinit is, that it was not sufficiently comprehen

sive-it did not go far enough-it should have been framed to compel the clergy to do their duty each for him elf---to oblige the mitred iords 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 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 Jower 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 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 con-ider 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 mig! 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.

pow

may be allowed, however, to express my regret that the stipendiary curates' bill should bave 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 parseed of appointing ber ministers and of applying her revenues,