Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small]

44

P 1074, col. 2, 20, read “Timperon," as allo in the Index of Names."

P. 104, col. 2. With regard to Q. Elizabeth, Mr Granger, in his "Remarks on Drefs, &c." at the end of her reign, writes thus: "As the Queen eft no lefs than three thoufand different habits in her wardrobe when the died, and was poffelled of the drefles of all countries, it is fomewhat firange that there is fuct an uniformity of drefs in her portraits, and that he hould take a pleafure in being loaded with ornaments." He refers to Carte, . 702, whofe words are: "Befides a vast quantity of jewels and plate, the left behind her an infinite number of clothes, no less than 3000 robes; not having had the heart to give or leave the leaft thing to her ladies or old fer

vants."

P. 1143. Mr. Falconer's Tranflation of the Periplus of Hanno was reviewed pp. 769-70, of your vol. for 1797. P. 1169-70. As to Mr. Maton, it may not be amils to recur to your vohme for 1804, pp. 222-8; and to the British Critic," xxii. 377-384.

P. 1174, col. I, 1. 20. The refer ence to Warton is not right. What hould it be?

P. 1176, col. 2, 1. 19, for “Durham" read Wefiminiter."

P. 1197. From an Epitaph in the chancel of Felbrigge Church, in Nor, folk, printed in Le Neve's "Monumenta Anglicana, from 1650 to 1718," p. 16. it appears that Eizabeth, a daughter of Sir Rowland Litou, was the firth wife of Thomas Windirim, Eq. who died in his 82d year in 1653. Yours, &c SCRUTATOR.

(To be continued.)

Mr URBAN, Aug. 24. I refrench to been obliged to N refirming the explanation which

make, I think it eflential in the first place to reheve your readers from the poffible apprehenfiour that I am going to drag them through a review of the whole, or, indeed, any confiderable part of the groffer errors to be found in The detailed Report of a Speech which

occupied more than two hours in the delivery. I fhall not even quote at full length the fingle pallage on which I am compelled to comment; trusting that your readers, if they find it neceffary, will take the trouble of turning to your Magazine for laft September, where they may fee it extracted and inferted in Dr. Milner's letter. It will be my flady to be as brief as I can, confitiently with juftice to an injured individual, and a numerous clafs of my fellow-fubjects calumniated through him.

In my former letter I obferved, that the paffage in queftion would furnish a very appofite iluftration of the fort of falfehood, which I mentioned to Mr Le Mefurier, not arifing from meditated fraud, but accidental confufion. My defence of Dr Milner, in the Report, begins with a reference to an attack which never was made, and which indeed never could have been made. I am reprefented as faying, 86 The definition of an Oath, on which the learned Doctor (Duigenan) has been fo fevere, if i had been fully and fairly quoted, is flrictly true, and accurately conformable to the moft rigid principles of ethics and morality;" and I then go on to ftate, from Dr. Milner, the four cafes in which Canonis deny the validity of promiffory Oaths. Now, Sir, it happens, that in all the pain phlet there is no definition of an Oath, but one which Dr. Milner does not give as his own, but profeffedly bor rows from Dr. Johnfon. On this it is perhaps needlefs to fay, Dr. Duigenan was not fevere, He did not in the moft remote degree allude to it, nor to any paffage of the context near it: or, indeed, of the particular work in which it lands. On my part, fo far was four erroneously afcribing to him any fuch imaginary feverity, that I exprefly produced the four cafes from the Canonifts, as containing principles which he would not deny, because he mn know them to have been, in effect, fanctioned and confirmed by fome of the mott emment teachers of our own church. In this refpect let me do him juftice.

The truth is, the learned member confined himfelf, as Mr. Le Mefurier does, to a fingle quotation from one part alone of Dr. Milner's publication, the Supplement, addrefled to Mr. Reeves. He reprobate:l as abominą. ble, what he, in common with Mr. Le Mefurier,

1807.]

Dr. Laurence's Statement of his own Speech.

703

Le Mefurier, is pleafed to fuppofe the glance around the houfe over the top plain, naked, unqualified doctrine of of his spectacles! and, finally, fuc Dr. Milner, that "in all cafes the keep-ceeded in drawing forth the noify aping of an Oath is a matter of expedi- probation of all thofe who confidered ency." And to prove this, he relied on him as the champion of their cante. the very fame extract which Mr. Le He then proceeded with the rest of the Meturer has conftantly used, begin- fentence, and in the close pronounced ning and ending exactly as my reverend the word "6 expediency," with a figusfriend gives it in your Magazine for ficant tone, which was not loft on the January. The effence of the whole is majority of his audience. The cheercomprized in the concluding pofition ings were renewed; and when they there cited, which I fhall therefore recealed, he repeated the conclufion in peat in this place; and, to fhew my the fame mode, and with fimilar effairnefs, without changing one of the fect. There was a certain originality Italicks and Capitals with which it is in the manner of the learned member, there decorated and diftinguished. It which led me to believe without hefitaruns, "that every human law, and tion, that all was his own. But any every promife, or other engagement, reverend friend cries, No: "Dr. Duihowever functioned by an Oath, MUST genan took it from my pamphlet."neceffarily turn upon the cardina} vir- And to think that he could have cotue of Prudence, which implies that it pied Dr. Duigenan, he calls “ putting depends, as to the obligation of fulfilling a fort of flight upon him." Having it in fuch and fuch circumftances, upon known and refpected him nearly forty the question of expediency "-You lee, years, I thould be forry now to offend Mr. Urban, with what happy dexte him. So I fhall not difpute his claina rity the eye is carried over the first to the honour which he covets of havwords, which only include in the pofi- ing been the prototype of Dr. Duigetion all the principles of legiflation, as nan. He must excufe me, however, well as the validity of all promifes or if I cannot on that account confent to engagements; an ordinary reader might retract or vary one word which I uttered. otherwife have been a little puzzled. I fhall not take fhelter behind the He might, with fome appearance of commodious fcreen which he fo kindly reafon, have doubted whether the great offers me, of a "fuppofed Speech,“ and expanded wifdom, which is thus and "fabricated Report" Nor, faid to govern all human inftitutions, in truth, do I perceive any reason that could be meant to be identified with I fhould; though I have now again the petty prudence and narrow expedi- read his attack on the wicked Reporter. ency, which are the pretexts of bafeminded and interefted men. Then, Sir, how admirably placed is the dark mafs of Roman type, from which the attention is irrefiftibly attracted, to the brighter points of the fharp-cut Italicks at the word Prudence! How conveniently in that intermediate fhade is funk the little circumftance, that the Prudence intended is no less than one of the four cardinal virtues, fo called as being the hinges on which all the minor virtues move and turn. Really I have feldom known two awkward phrafes in one fenience fo well managed, without a fyllable of obfervation` beftowed upon either of them throughour the whole commentary.

[blocks in formation]

Since my reverend friend then wil have it fo, Mr. Urban, he certainly is implicated in the accufation, which I fhall not deny myfelf to have brought againft Dr. Duigei an. It was, as he truly ftates it to have been, that “of having made a charge which is not warranted, either by the letter or the fpirit of the paffage in queftion; and, in order to do this, having taken the words out of the context." My proof of this accufation fimply confifted in reading the fentence which immediately follows that with which Dr. Duigenan concluded; and which contains the author's own interpretation of his own meaning. "After all," fubjoins Dr. Milner, "this is faying no more than that THE ETERNAL AND IMMU

TABLE LAW OF NATURE, OR RATHER

OF GOD, IS PARAMOUNT TO ALL SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATIONS, which we may take upon ourselves, WHENEVER THESE

APPEAR TO MILITATE AGAINST EACH

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1

dern fashion of punctuation, which delights in breaking down periods into detached fentences, is feparated from what goes before by a full ftop: but, fifty years fince, it would probably have been united to it by the flight connexion of a colon. Yet, point it as you will, it is manifefily a part, and a moft important part too, of the context, profeffedly added to qualify and explain the preceding propofition. Mr. Le Mefurier has taken upon himself to affert, that " Dr. Milner could not, without blushing, have brought forward, as coming from himfelf, the charge attributed to me: because, truly, "his own words must have flared him in the face." In my opinion the blush should be transformed to the countenances of his adverfaries, for having fuppreffed words of his which they could not look in the face. Something to this effect I did, at the time, addrefs to the learned member in the Houfe of Commons; as my reverend friend infifts on having his full fhare of the compliment, I have given it to him in the manner which I prefume he will moft approve, in terms the moft nearly refembling his own.

66

tholic Doctrines, and whom no man
that knows him will believe to be
loofe and carelefs in eftimating the
folemn obligation of an Oath), ad-
mitted diftinctly across the Houle, that
in fuch a cafe an Oath would not be
obligatory. On this I fixed; and then
declared, that it was not mine, but
Dr. Milner's own illuftration of his
doctrines concerning the Prudence to
he applied in confidering the obliga-
tions of Oaths, to which fo much ob-
jection had been made. This," I
added, "is the cxpediency; and it is
his own word in reference to this very
cafe, of which Dr. Milner peaks."
Mr. Le Mefurier curforily notices, that
it is put very differently in the Speech
from what it is in the Pamphlet. It
may be fo literally, but, I am fure,
not effentially. My reverend friend
has paffed it by," becaufe," as he tells
us, it will fave time to fay at once
that it does not at all apply to the quef
tion." And he is right, availing him-
felf as he does of the confufion of the
Report, in beginning with the four
cafes of the Canonifts. Understanding
it as in connexion with them (which,
however, is hardly a fair conftruction
of the Report, imperfect as it is), eafy,
indeed, was the triumph to fhew that
a ftate of facis defigned for one, or fay
two cafes at moft, will not always il-
luftrate four cafes. It would have been
more worthy of my reverend friend if
he had taken the trouble to inform us
inftead, what was the reafon that he
never fuffers a hint of it to efcape his
pen, when he is writing about the
place where it does apply, and is in-
troduced by the author to limit the
fenfe of the general terms Prudence and
Expediency. A little argument too
might have been ufeful to fatisfy us, if
he could, that to omit this was to give
the whole context entire.
F. LAURENCE.
(To be concluded in our next.) ·

Defiring till further to guard himfelf against any poffible mifconftruction, Dr. Milner, in his pamphlet, infiantly paffes to another mode of illuftrating his meaning by the fuppofition of a particular cafe, or rather two cafes arifing out of one and the fame promife. If you have engaged to return a fword which you have detained, is it your duty to do fo, fhould you be Tatisfied that fome fatal ufe would be made of it; or fhould the weapon be neceffary at the moment to yourself, for the purpofe of defending the life of , your Sovereign, or, indeed, of any other innocent perfon? This of courfe had been omitted by Dr. Duigeuan. But I did not read it from the original work. I here but the book. feemed fair enough to employ a little art in counteracting a great deal. There August 14. could be no doubt that a ready affent must be given to fuch cafes, but LA FARM not having paid tithes (fee p. 636) is no reafon for its not paying them; the old law maxim. holds good, nullum tempus occurrit ecclefia; an exemption must be proved, and the onus probandi attaches to the occupier. I believe there are few but Church Lands which have an exemption. CLERICUS.

It

conceived, that it would be more ftrongly expreffed if this were taken for a forced construction of mine, which might be afterwards contended to be a total departure from the text. The event answered my expectation. The Attorney-General, Mr. PERCEVAL (whom no man that has heard of him will fufpect of being too favourable to Ca

Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

P.S. It does not affect the queftion that a demand has not been made. Mr.

1

[graphic][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »