snatched, drenched in the pump's cool stream, and deemed most delicious. Our palates were then not vitiated: with the savoury dishes of the Epicurean, we had no acquaintance: certainly for these we should have had no relish. We were hungry and we knew the truth of Horace's line:

"Jejunus stomachus raro vulgaria temnit."

But as I gazed around, I missed the neat white palings that divided the play-ground into four beautiful green plots. Alas! what has become of them! The trees within their enclosure are still standing, but the soft down of the grass is gone, and rough street pavement occupies its place. Over that spot, where my boyhood, in a dream of poetic enthusiasm, imagined the Dryads danced, the weary horse, at this moment, stumbles against the hard projecting stones. Grieved at the change, I sighed and pensively walked away. On a sudden I found myself, without knowing how I got there, in

THE REFECTORY.

It is a spacious hall. More than an hundred urchins have sat down together at the tables, which are still extant, though the arrangement is changed. My eye sought the place, which the prefect assigned to me. Then it fell upon the pulpit-where often I have read as my fellows eat: where, as from a Roman rostrum, deeming myself a second Tully, I have addressed them, sometimes in a strain of original nothing, sometimes in the language of the Roman, sometimes of the Grecian, sometimes of the British Minerva: and often there have struck the muse's harp, and deemed myself a Maro or a Pope! I remembered the day, when it fell to my lot to repeat the celebrated speech in Sallust: "Micipsa Pater meus moriens," &c. It is still lingering on my mind, like the notes of music heard in a doze. In the middle of the floor it has been my lot to kneel, not indeed to offer a voluntary prayer, but to atone, by a public penance, for some puerile freak. And there the little prefect was wont to pace, measuring as it were the length, and breadth, of the planks; humming some ditty as he danced along; casting a censor's eye from bench to bench, with his ear open to catch the smallest whisper,

and with a heart of Brutus, to inflict justice, even on a son. The signal sounded-it was a rap on the table-and the meal broke up: the noise was like that described by Milton in his Pandemonium. Grace was said by the prefect, the Rhadamanthus of the place: "Castigatque auditque dolos." The sentences of punishment were read: one to stand for a certain time in a solitary corner; another to write a certain number of times a verb; another to commit to memory a portion of classic lore. The delinquent frowned, hung down his head and swore revenge. Then each made his bow to the despot of the refectory, and rushed with precipitancy and loud clamorings to play. U. U.

CORRESPONDENCE ON THE CONVERSION OF THE HON. AND REV. GEORGE SPENCER, SON OF LORD SPENCER, TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

(Continued from page 462.)

(To the Editor of the Baltimore Gazette.)

BALTIMORE, 26th May, 1830.

DEAR SIR,-As it appears, that my correspondence with the "Subscriber" is now brought to a close, I cannot but return you my thanks for the favour you have granted in permitting me to communicate my sentiments through the columns of your excellent Gazette. I little thought I should have occupied so much of your space: it was not my wish to do so-I am not fond of such discussions—but when it is necessary, I shall be found ready to do my duty.

I am aware that a report had gone abroad that "the Baltimore Press is entirely under the control of the Catholics:" I knew it was false; I knew where it originated. You are indebted, Sir, for this imputation to a paper which I always thought held the first place among slanderous publications-the "Protestant."

(To the Editor of the Baltimore Gazette.)

SIR,-I know not what motive has induced your “Subscriber” to assume so extraordinary a tone of moderation in his last address, after having vented all his acrimony, and wasted all his

bile, in his preceding communication. It cannot be supposed that our modern Goliah could be so effectually "intimidated," by a "lad of a seminary." But, Sir, he feels himself completely oppressed by the badness of his cause, and the indignation of the public. After sneering at our infallible Church; after declaring that "Popery is an enemy to moral and religious liberty;" after asserting that it is not surprising that the Rev. George Spencer, should have changed to the Catholic Religion, as he had rushed into the ministry in deplorable ignorance of truth; after "sating his appetite" on the "CORRUPTIONS" of our Church; after throwing out the most vulgar inuendoes against indulgences; (a subject of which he knows nothing-I am confident, Sir, that he cannot give the definition of an indulgence;) after indirectly accusing us of paying adoration "at the shrines of Saints;" after insulting in the grossest manner, an half a million of Catholics in these United States, he still has the presumption, the hardihood, the inconsistency to make the following concession: "where shall we find more fidelity and benevolence, in all the relations of life, more consistency and zeal in attachment to their faith, more lively and humble devotion, a greater freedom of fanaticism on one hand, and from the pride of scepticism on the other, than is often met in the intelligent Roman Catholic?"

He has then, Sir, been reduced to this. Fearful of the consequences of this correspondence, smarting under the remorse of a reproving conscience, ashamed of the step he has taken, and the extremes he has been driven to, by "a lad," pursued alike by the contempt of the intelligent Roman Catholic, and the censure of the liberal Protestant, he sees no alternative but to throw himself at the feet of the community, and in the style of a supplicant, to implore forgiveness of both. We will pardon him, Sir, under one condition: that he promise never again to meddle with things not appertaining to his profession.-Taught by "hard experience," he should never more seek to burst from his obscurity upon an indignant public, and if he be wise, he will never take upon himself to deny any "FACT" that may hereafter, be communicated through the medium of this Gazette, or any other respectable paper. Had he been silent, at first he would have been spared the defeat and humiliation which he has suffered-he would not

have roused the good sense and judgment of the public against him; he would not have been reduced to the sad necessity of contradicting himself, palpably and evidently contradicting himself, three or four different times; he would not have been driven to the melancholy resource of falling with affected sorrow and repentance, at the feet of the "intelligent Roman Catholic."

He seeks, Mr. Editor, with an art not unknown to men who have been disappointed in their hope to bear away all opposition, to propitiate the sympathy of his readers, by accusing me, in vague terms, of having used harsh, unbecoming, ungentlemanly language. But, Sir, in this instance, he cannot but fail: the public have our essays before them, they need but contrast them, and they will be convinced, that if I have made use of strong and decisive language, I was compelled to do so, by the nature of the picces to which I replied. Yes, Sir, let it be remembered, I have merely replied. Your "Subscriber," from what motive God only knows, attacked our Church in the most violent manner. Who, that has a heart, could suffer, in silence, the black imputations which he has cast upon the Catholic Religion! Who could bear to hear the Church, which we believe to have been established by Christ himself, nicknamed Popery, Romanism, &c.? Who could, without reply, be accused of "error," "corruption," and "priestly domination?" Now, Sir, your "Subscriber," has heaped those ignominious epithets upon us, and has impeached us of every absurdity and impiety. Do not forget, Sir, his allusions to the building of the Vatican, the bales of Indulgences; the Convents, the Hospitals. I appeal to any reasonable man if these were not indecorous and "ungentlemanly” in the extreme—and I ask, whether I was not bound to notice them, and whether our language has terms too strong to be used in the cause of self-defence, and in vindication of the most sacred institutions of Religion.

Had your "Subscriber" contented himself with defending, in an honourable and liberal manner, the doctrines of Protestantism, I should not have been surprised, nor would I have treated him otherwise, than with the respect due to one who acts from conviction and principle. But, instead of this, he has launched out

into all the extravagant abuse, and raked up from the dust of past ages all the calumnies and antiquated tales, invented for purposes of interest, and to serve the designs of a persecuting government. He should have reflected, Sir, where he is-he has sounded the alarm of "no popery," not amid the hills of "Lancashire, nor in the neighbourhood of Preston," but in the land of freedom, on the banks of a water, on which Catholicism was first planted, and on which she proclaimed, with a spirit of forgiveness and universal sympathy-UNRESERVED RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. Could I, Sir, could any reflecting, feeling Catholic hear that sound-that savage-like cry, without a sentiment of indignation? Could I assert our birthrights, vindicate our cause, repulse an invidious, slanderous attack, with too much promptness, or with too much vigour! it is manifest that I could not—that I should not. Again, Sir, when I remarked that I had at my feet the "spolia opima" of this controversy, I meant, that the great object of our correspondence has been conceded to me by the "Subscriber"-though he at first, positively denied it, though, in the second instance, he affected to doubt it-though, in the third place, he promised to "inquire" into the fact, he finally admits that "THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT, THAT THE YOUNGEST SON [the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, Chaplain of the Bishop of London] HAS EMBRACED YOUR CORRESPONDENT'S FAITH!" What more could I ask? What greater concession could your “Subscriber" make? And in what an awkward position is he not placed, or rather has he not placed himself, before the public eye? And still, Mr. Editor, after all this, he presumed to say, that I had fled, retreated in confusion from him! and what is more incredible, while writhing under his extorted acknowledgment of the "fact," and consequently of his temerity in calling it in question, he dared to challenge me to a controversy on religious topics"To discuss," he said in a former communication, what he calls the "CORRUPTIONS OF POPERY." But in his last he softens his rash and insulting terms, and humbly changes them into the more gentle denomination of "CHARACTERISTICS" of the Catholic Church.

Your "Subscriber," next alleges against me an accusation of a most grievous nature- a novum crimen et ante hunc diem in